TransformationsoftheOrientalintheArchitecturalWorkofJurajNeidhardtand
DušanGrabrijan
AThesis
SubmittedtotheUniversityofNewSouthWales
FortheDegreeof
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
By
DijanaAli
FacultyoftheBuiltEnvironment
TheUniversityofNewSouthWales
Sydney,Australia,
2010
Inmemoryofmyparents,NadijaandTeofikAli
Contents
TRANSFORMATIONSOFTHEORIENTALINTHEARCHITECTURALWORKOFJURAJNEIDHARDTANDDUŠANGRABRIJAN.....................................................................I
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................iii
ListofFigures................................................................................................................................v
ListofPublications........................................................................................................................ix
Glossaryofterms..........................................................................................................................xi
Chapter1Introduction:ArchitectureandIdeologyintheWorkofDušanGrabrijanandJurajNeidhardt....................................................................................................................................13
Thescopeofthethesis:thewritingsofGrabrijanandNeidhardt..................................................15Scopeoftheargument:theroleofarchitectureincreatinganationalidentity............................17Thesiscontribution:architecture,identityandpoliticsofculture.................................................19Theoreticalframework:overlappingfieldsofarchitecture,identity,cultureandpoliticsofYugoslavia.....................................................................................................................................23Thesisoutline:thedevelopmentoftheargument.........................................................................29
PARTONE:DEVELOPINGATHEORETICALFRAMEWORK......................................35
Chapter2TheKunstwollenofBosnia..........................................................................................37‘Nottofindanew,buttoshowitanew’:Plenik’sarchitectureandteaching..............................38IdentifyingthesignificanceofBašaršija.......................................................................................52Historicyes,butnotsignificant:theproblemsofIslamicheritage.................................................54TheoriginsandtransformationsofBašaršija,fromthetowncentretothehistoricprecinct.......58TheAustro–Hungariantransformations:fromtowncentretohistoricprecinct............................66Thesearchfortherelevanceofhistoricfabric...............................................................................74Themodernityofpast:‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’......................................................................79Theauthenticityofpast:‘Turkishhouse,itssourcesandprinciples’.............................................84Conclusion:roleofarchitectureinestablishingnationalclaims....................................................88
Chapter3Bašaršija’sContributiontotheNewMasterPlanofSarajevo:theIslamicasOriental.91Anurbanvisionofamoderncity:‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’.......................................................92Theoldprecinctandthenewcity...............................................................................................100SearchingforOrientalsecrets.....................................................................................................102TheimpactofLeCorbusier’sviews.............................................................................................111Bašaršija:‘surgeryormedication’..............................................................................................115Thenewsatelliteminingtowns...................................................................................................119Individualhouses:modernhouseswithOrientalparts................................................................125Conclusion:TheOrientoftheoldtownandthemodernityofnewsuburbs................................131
Chapter4BosnianOrientalasanArchitecturalExpressionofSocialistIdeology........................135TheYugoslavcommunistartisticagendaandaresistancetotheparticular................................137Thechangingpoliticalcontext:Tito–Stalinconflict......................................................................145Tito’ssearchfor‘our’architecture..............................................................................................147
ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity:a‘syntheticintegrationoftheoldexperiencesandnewsocialistneeds’.........................................................................................149Redefiningthegroundsuponwhichanationisconstructed.......................................................155ThequalitiesembeddedinBosnianOriental...............................................................................172ContributionofBosnianOrientaltoYugoslavia...........................................................................175Conclusion:ArchitectureisacarrierofthepoliticalmessageofmulticulturalBosnia.................182
PARTTWO:APPLICATION..................................................................................185
Chapter5TransformingtheTheoreticalintoanArchitecturalAgenda:theMahalaandaršijaasArchitecturalPrototypesofBosnianModernExpression............................................................187
TransformingBašaršija:anewapproachtothestudyofaršijaandmahala............................187Thevaluesofmonuments:abstraction,lightandscale...............................................................194Thevaluesofthetraditionalhouse(Bosanskakua)..................................................................200ThepragmaticsofBosanskakua:thesecularvaluesandrationalgroundingofthetraditionalhouse..........................................................................................................................................202Transformingreligiousintosecularvalues..................................................................................207TheemotionalvaluesattachedtoBosanskakua.......................................................................211Thedictionary:integratingthepragmaticsandpoetics..............................................................212Conclusion:theuniversalandtheparticularoftheBosnianOrientalhouse...............................217
Chapter6TransformingtheCity:theNewaršijaastheThemeParkofSocialismandtheDesignoftheParliamentHousePrecinct...............................................................................................219
Bašaršijaandsocialisturbanpolices..........................................................................................220PastandpresentreunitedintheNewaršijaproject:athemeparkofsocialistBosnia.............224Marindvorprecinctandthedesignofsocialistmodernism.........................................................241Historicalcontinuityandprogressivedevelopmentofculture....................................................244ThebuildingoftheNationalAssembly........................................................................................247Postscript:Bašaršijaasacentreofcollectiveidentity...............................................................250
Chapter7DiscussionandConclusions.......................................................................................255Overviewandconclusions..........................................................................................................255Contribution:changingformationsofidentity............................................................................259Contemporaryandfuturerelevance:wardestructionandthemeaningsofarchitecture...........262
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................269Booksandarticles.......................................................................................................................269SelectedbibliographyofGrabrijan’spublications:......................................................................282Websites....................................................................................................................................288
i
Abstract
This thesis explores the correlation between architectural expression and political
ideology in the work of two prominent post–World War Two Yugoslav architects,
DušanGrabrijanandJurajNeidhardt.Itfocusesontheircollaborativearchitectural
writings,namely ‘Sarajevoand ItsSatellites’ (1942),publishedduringtheproNazi
governmentoftheIndependentStateofCroatia,andArchitectureofBosniaandthe
WayTowardsModernity (1957),producedatthepeakofYugoslavsocialism.Both
publications explored the relevance of the Ottoman/Islamic built heritage to the
creationofamoderncitybutonlyinthelatterdidtheauthorsidentifythislegacyas
asuitablecatalystforthecreationofaBosnianmodernarchitecturalexpression.
This change in position, the thesis argues, developed in relation to the 1950s
nationalistdiscourseinYugoslaviaand,morespecifically,thesocialistledvalidation
oftheBosnianMuslimcommunitythroughthelatter’sofficialrepresentationfrom
areligioustoanationalgroup.GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sconceptionoftheBosnian
Oriental expression as a ‘synthesis of old experiences and new ways’, similarly
offered to resolve the longstanding problematic relationship between the
architecture of Ottoman origin and an architecture deemed appropriate for a
socialistsociety.
ii
Architectural historians of Yugoslav modernism have recognised Grabrijan and
Neidhardt’s contribution to modernity and praised their capacity to connect
Yugoslav modernism with the international agenda. However, the specifics of
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s vision and the ideological connotations embedded in it
havenotbeenacknowledged.This thesisaddresses thatomissionandshows that
while there had been earlier attempts to integrate the Bosnian Islamic past into
architecturaldebates,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’smodelofBosnianOrientaloffered
aplacefortheOttomanfabricwithinthenewsocialistarchitecturalaspirations.The
thesis foregrounds the important role that architecture plays in the process of
construction,aswellasdestruction,ofnationalidentities.
iii
Acknowledgements
I began writing this thesis many years ago. The process has been as much an
investigationofmyownidentityasanacademicresearchproject.Itwasprompted
by the outbreak of war in the lands of the former Yugoslavia. The losses of war
initiated a search for understanding what was happening back home and the
reasonsforthis,iftherecouldeverbeanyreasonsforawar.Ittookmanyyearsof
thinkingforthisthesistobefinallyproduced.IdonotbelieveIhavefoundanswers,
but I feel that Ihaveexplored the relevantpaths. In theprocess I learntasmuch
aboutidentityasabouttheimpossiblemissionofdefiningit.
Indevelopingthisthesis Ihavereceivedhelpfrommanyscholarsandfriends.The
depthofmygratitudetoallthose isgreaterthanIcanacknowledge.Butwithmy
sincerestapologiesforanyunintendedomissionsIwouldliketothankthefollowing
peopleand institutions:mysupervisors,Dr.PeterKohaneandProfessor JonLang,
whoprovidedinspirationandguidance.ManyofmycolleaguesintheFacultyofthe
Built Environment, who gave support and encouragements, namely Dr. Judith
O’Callaghanforherconstructivesuggestions,MaryamGushehandJohnGamblefor
theirsustainedinterestinmywork;GrahamHannahfortechnicalsupport,andthe
UniversityofNewSouthWalesforprovidingthePhDCompletionScholarshipthat
allowed for some focused research time. I would also like to acknowledge the
encouragements and assistance provided by Professor Zeynep Çelik in her
iv
constructivecriticismat theearlystagesofmywork;AndrasRiedlmayer fromthe
AgaKhanProgramforIslamicArchitectureatHarvardUniversity;Dr.PeterKreiat
The Architectural Museum in Ljubljana; Dženana Gološ and staff at the Gradski
Zavod za Zaštitu I Ureenje Spomenika Kulture Sarajevo, and Istorijski Arhiv
Sarajeva, Dr. Jelica Kapetanovi at the Faculty of Architecture, University of
Sarajevo,andmanyothers.IwouldalsoliketothankDr.DeborahvanderPlaatfor
hercarefulreadingofapreviousversionofthis textandDr.SenkaBožiVrbani
forlivelyconversationsaboutYugoslavpolitics.IwanttothankmybrotherDr.Nazif
Ali for his trust in me and my aunt Jasmina Musabegovi for searching for
documents inSarajevo libraries. Iwrote this thesis in the time leftover from full
timeteachingandparenting.Mygratitudegoestomyfamily,whosupportedmein
workinglateandatnight.MyloveandheartfeltthanksgotoBranimiruriandmy
daughters,ElaandIna,foreverythingtheyhavedoneforme,butmostofallforjust
beingthere.
v
ListofFigures
Figure1:TerritorialdivisionoftheKingdomofYugoslavia19181921.Source:Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.113....................................................................................................................................40Figure2:Illyrianmonument,J.Plenik,Ljubljana.Source:D.Ali,2004.............................................49Figure3:Contemporaryviewof theexteriorof thecoveredmarketplaceofBrusaBezistan.Source:DijanaAli,2004................................................................................................................................61Figure4:aršijawithitssurroundingsattheendof19thcentury,Neidhardt’smapdevelopedonthebase of late 19th century Austro Hungarian map. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.59..................................................................................65Figure5:ContemporaryviewofVijenica.Source:DijanaAli,2004..................................................72Figure6:ContemporaryviewofBašaršijasquarewithsebilj.Source:DijanaAli,2004....................73Figure7:‘SchematicrepresentationofthenewsuburbsofthemiddleBosnianminingbasin’.Mapofsatellitetownsincludedintheproposal:(1)oldandnewSarajevo;(2)Ilidža;(3)Breza;(4)Riica;(5)Riica; (6)VarešMajdan; (7)Zenica.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevoand ItsSatellites’,p.272.....................................................................................................................................................97Figure 8: ‘East–west artery’, an urban vision for Sarajevo presented in its relation to significantlocations (from top to bottom of the drawing) that include: city gate at Bijela Tabija; bazaar ofBašaršija; King Tvrtko urban square; Stjepan Tomaševi urban square, intersection in front of AliPasha’sMosque,MarijinDvor andNewRailway Station. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.239....................................................................................................................99Figure 9: Drawings illustrating the organic unity of terrain and architecture. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.225.................................................................................101Figure10:Muslimhouse,drawing.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.215..........................................................................................................................................................102Figure 11: Josip Vancaš: houses designed in ‘Bosnian style’. Source: I. Krzovi, Arhitektura Bosne iHercegovine,1878–1918,pp.232&235..........................................................................................104Figure 12: The Orient as inspiration. Face cover and veil, (zar and vala). Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoanditsSatellites’,pp.212&213.....................................................................107Figure 13: Medina mosque. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, p. 210.[ImagerepublishedinArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity].............................109Figure14:Sketchofanarabesque.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212..........................................................................................................................................................111Figure 15: Design proposal for urban regulation of Bašaršija. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212...................................................................................................118Figure16:Mapofsatellitetownsincludedintheproposal.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoanditsSatellites’,p.274..................................................................................................................121Figure17:UrbandevelopmentofLjubija,withanewlydesignedchurchlocatedinthecentreoftown.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.280.................................................125Figure18:Neidhardt’sdevelopmentofthe‘elemental’architecturalvocabularyofBosnia.Singlemanhousing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the WayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.317.......................................127Figure 19: Single man housing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.292.......128Figure 20: Singlemen’s housing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.292.......129Figure 21: Singlemen’s housing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.287.......130
vi
Figure 22: Territorial divisions of the former Yugoslavia, 19451991. Source: Lampe, Yugoslavia asHistory,p.231.................................................................................................................................136Figure23: StagedesignedbyNeidhardt for Tito’s visit to Sarajevo. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.321.....................................................141Figure24: ‘Peoplebuild, statehelps’posterdesignedbyNeidhardt.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.320.....................................................141Figure25:Structureofthebookasrepresentedasatree.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.4.............................................................................152Figure 26: Drawing of a panorama of Sarajevo, showing an harmonious connection between theterrain and the city. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and theWay TowardsModernity,p.5................................................................................................................................153Figure27:Sketchshowing theMecca–Sarajevo link.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.60...............................................................................163Figure28:Drawingofsojenicastructures.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.4....................................................................................................165Figure29:SteakfromRadimlje,Bosnia.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.19..................................................................................................167Figure 30: Neidhardt’s sketch of steak, a medieval tombstone. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.......................................................168Figure31:Neidhardt’s sketchof steakornamentsanddecoration. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.......................................................169Figure 32: Illustration titled ‘From old to new pyramid 5 millenniums’. Source: Kapetanovi, ‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’;p.464..................................................................................173Figure33:Bosniaasaplaceofnegotiations,‘Urbanandarchitecturalanalysis’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.322....................................174Figure34:Mosque,churchandthemonumenttoLenin.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.238.........................................................................175Figure35:HouseonthemountainofTrebevi(1947).Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.279.............................................................................177Figure36:Tourismandrecreationzones.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.484................................................................................................181Figure 37: Map highlighting important architectural sites. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.442.....................................................182Figure38:Divisionofprecinctbasedoncrafts.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.64...........................................................................................190Figure39:Divisionofprecinctbasedoncrafts.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.65...........................................................................................192Figure 40: ‘Store beside store, handicraft beside handicraft’. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.66.......................................................193Figure41:Bašaršijaasaproductionline.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.66..................................................................................................194Figure42:Monumentsandsignificantstructuresoftheoldprecinct.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.61.......................................................195Figure43:Beg’sMosque,crosssectionandaxonometric.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.83...........................................................................196Figure44:A.Choisy,HagiaSophia,fromHistoried’Architecture(1899);reprintedinA.Forty,WordsandBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004,p.23........197Figure45:Lighting inBeg’smosque.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.87........................................................................................................198Figure46:‘Mihrab,pulpit,carpet’,abstractingthespace.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.284.........................................................................199Figure47:Neidhardt’sproposalfortemporaryshelters,1945.Source:Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.269.......................................................................................................201Figure 48: Embryonic development of an old house in Sarajevo. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.166.....................................................203
vii
Figure49:Furnishingsandutensilsofatraditionalhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.204–05..................................................................204Figure 50: Neidhardt’s drawing of Svrzo’s house; layout and cross section. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.183....................................206Figure51:InnercourtyardandaroominSvrzo’shouse(Svrzinakua),openedtothepublicin1953.Source: Muzej Grada Sarajeva, Stambena Kultura Starog Sarajeva, DES, Sarajevo.http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang,en/.........................................................207Figure 52: Abdesthana and banjica space in Svrzo’s house. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.138......................................................208Figure 53: ‘Modernity of the traditional house’s interior’, erzelez house. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.208....................................209Figure54:Modernityofthetraditionalhome:crossventilationandaninteriorofamutvak(women’skitchen)oftheDjerdjelesfamilyhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.208......................................................................................................210Figure55:Thecity,aršija,mahala,house,24sketches.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57....................................................................213Figure 56: Neidhardt’s ‘Uptodate architectonic dictionary alphabet of the carpettown’. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.324.................215Figure 57: Neidhardt’s illustration of a traditional interior. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.230......................................................217Figure 58: Bašaršija precinct during the socialist period. Plan indicating the chronologicaldevelopmentoftheprecinct:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodoxchurch;C)Jewishsynagogue;D)Brusabezistan;E)RustempashaBezistan;F)Czar’smosque;G)TownHall.OriginallypresentedinJSAH,vol.51,no.1,March1991,drawingadjustedfromthemapusedinA.Bejti,StaraSarajevskaaršija–juer,danasIsutra............................................................................................................220Figure59:ModelofBašaršija.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.98................................................................................................................224Figure60:ViewoftheBašaršijaproposal.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.139................................................................................................226Figure61:TheNewaršijaproposal:viewofnewartistsstudiosabovetheOldOrthodoxchurch(topandbottomleft);proposedchangeofGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistanintoabar(topright);aninteriorofthenewTownMuseumtobehousedintheformerSheriat(MuslimLaw)School.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.114....................................229Figure62:InteriorviewoftheproposedadaptationofBrusabezistan.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57................................................229Figure63:ProposalfortheNewMuseumofRevolutionwithintheoldGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistanthatwouldincludeartcelebrating‘Liberationwar’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.126.........................................................................................230Figure64:TheproposedgatetotheBašaršijaprecinct.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.109..........................................................................231Figure65:ProposedBogumilgravestonesintheprecinct.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113..........................................................................232Figure66:Interiorsofproposedrestaurant‘Aeroplane’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.294..........................................................................235Figure 67: Longitudinal section through the new Bašaršija. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120–21..............................................236Figure68: Planof theNewaršijaproposal:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodox church; C)Jewish synagogue;D) Catholic church of St Anthony; E) newgraveyard; F) Czar’smosque;G) newpublic/culturalbuildings;H)newresidentialareaforculturalworkers.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.117......................................................238Figure 69: Proposal for theAcademyofArts and Sciences of the People’s Republic of BiH. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113.................239Figure 70: Collection of architectural ‘elements’ includes steak; traditional house and mosques’domes.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.416...................................................................................................................................................240
viii
Figure 71: Images of New aršija, photomontage. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120&121.................................................................241Figure 72: Masterplan view of the new Marindvor proposal. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.414.....................................................243Figure73:ThemapofMarindvorprecinctandSarajevo,drawnbyNeidhardt. ‘Dwellingcomplex inYugoslavArmyStreet(196647).First[example]inthehistoryofSarajevo[where]theprincipleofaspaciousmeanderstreet isapplied’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.408......................................................................................................243Figure74:Source:‘Graphicanalysisoftheelementsoftheurbansolution’describedthroughuseofkeywords (from top) ‘zone’; ‘zigzag space’; ‘visual markers of heights’; ‘space’; ‘views’, ‘traffic’;‘historic precinct’; ‘continuity’; ‘pedestrian zones’ and patterns’; ‘squares’ and ‘city as a carpet’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.415................245Figure75:Fromtop:urbansolutionforMarindvorprecinct.Bird’seyeviewof‘Manifestationsquare’and theparliamentHousebuilding. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,pp.410&413.........................................................................................246Figure 76: ’Elements’ of the new National Assembly buildings: tower, atrium, shells, balcony andveranda.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417..................................................................................................................................................247Figure 77: Design for the National Assembly of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417....................................247Figure78:PeopleviewingtheParliamentHousebuilding.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.410.........................................................................249Figure79:Sarajevo,apostcard,publishedby‘Svjetlost’..................................................................252Figure80: TheParliamentofBosniaandHercegovinaburnsafter beinghit by tank fire during thesiegein1992.Source:MikhailEvstafiev(photographer),Wikipedia................................................264Figure81:RubbleinVijenica,formerTownHallandNationalandUniversityLibrarybuilding.Source:D.Ali..............................................................................................................................................267
ix
ListofPublications
Ali, D., ‘Saraybosna Belediye Binas: Bellein Yer ve Ortamlar’,in C.Bilsel,A.Ciravolu,N.Dostolu,A.E.Bulca,D.nceday,H.Kahveciolu,E.Madran,S.Özalolu,T.S.Tamat,G.Tümer,H.T.Yldz(eds.),MimarlklarnPazaryeri,XXII.DünyaMimarlkKongresi'ndenSeçmeBildiriler;TMMOBMimarlarOdas (ChamberofArchitectsofTurkey),Ankara,January2009,pp.6377.Ali,D.,‘Theroleofrationalandscientificargumentsinthepromotionofideologythrough architecture’, F. G. Leman, A. J. Ostwald, A Williams (eds.) Innovation,InspirationandInstruction:NewKnowledgeinArchitecturalSciences,Proceedingsofthe 42nd Annual Conference on the Australian and New Zealand ArchitecturalScience Association (ANZASca), Newcastle, Australia, 2628 November 2008, pp.161168.
Ali, D., ‘Political secularisation and architectural abstraction: the dialectics of thenewsocialistarchitecture’,PanoramatoParadise,XXIVthConferenceoftheSocietyof Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, Adelaide, Australia, 2124September2007,pp.113.
Ali, D., ‘Following the traces: the role of historical studies in the architecturaldesignstudio’,inConnectED2007InternationalConferenceonDesignEducation,9–12July2007,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Sydney,Australia,papercode61.
Ali, D., ‘Dare to be Similar: The transformable house’, Architect Victoria, OfficialJournal of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter Print,Autumn2007,pp.45.
Ali, D., ‘Marindvor precinct and the design of the socialist Modernism’, in T.McMinn, J. Stephens, S. Basson (eds.),ContestedTerrains,TheProceedingsof theTwentythird Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians ofAustraliaandNewZealand,NotreDameUniversity,Fremantle,WesternAustralia,29thSeptember2October2006,pp.914.
Ali,D., ‘DaretobeSimilar:TheTransformablehouse’, inS.Whibley&D.Ramirez(eds.), Rehousing, UAL International conference proceedings, Urban ArchitectureLaboratory,RMIT,MelbourneAustralia,58October2006,pp.4655.
Ali, D., ‘Ascribing significance to sites of memory, the Sarajevo’s town hall’, in P.Somma(ed.),AtWarWiththeCity,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.
x
Ali,D., ‘Whatdoesplacemeantome,everything’,InterviewwithGlennMurcutt,ORISMagazineofarchitectureandculture,vol.5,no.25,Zagreb,Croatia,pp.433.
Ali,D.,‘Grabrijan,RieglandtheproblemofStyle’,Progress,TheProceedingsoftheTwentieth Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, AustraliaandNewZealand,Sydney,25October,2003,pp.15.Ali, D. & Bertram, C., ‘Sarajevo: a moving target’, Centropa, Journal of CentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.2,no.3,September2002,pp.164176.
Ali,D., ‘SiteofMemoryandHistory:SarajevoTownHall (Vijecnica)’, inS.Akkach(ed.), DePlacing Differences, Architecture, Culture and Imaginative Geography,CAMEA, 3rd Symposium, Centre for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture, TheUniversityofAdelaide,Australia,2002,pp.191201.
Ali, D., ‘Transposed meanings: The Town Hall in Sarajevo’, Open HouseInternational,War&Cities,vol.27,no.4,2002,pp.2031.
AliD.&GushehM., ‘Reconcilingcompetingnationalnarratives inSocialistBosniaandHerzegovina:TheBašaršijaProject (194853)’, JSAH,Journalof theSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.58,no.1,March,1999,pp.625.
Ali, D., 'From Ottoman house to Bosnian style: Neidhardt’s design for workers’housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1939 to 1942)’, InSite, An electronic journalpublished by Graduate Students at the Faculty of the Built Environment, no. 1,March1999.
Ali,D.,‘Changingperspectivesofarchitecturalvernacular:GrabrijanandSarajevo’,inR.Blythe,R.Spence(eds.)Thresholds.PapersoftheSixteenthAnnualConferenceof the SocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,AustraliaandNewZealand, Launceston,September1999,pp.17.
Ali,D.,‘Sarajevoandthemakingofmonuments(19451992)’,inM.Ghandour,M.Labban, M. Lozanovska (eds.), Sites of Recovery, The Fourth 'Other Connections'Conference,Beirut,Lebanon,October,1999,pp.1118.
Ali,D.,‘Inthesearchofstabilisingarchitecturalprinciples:fromtheBosnianhousetoBosnianstyle’, in J.Willis,P.Goad,A.Hutson (eds.)FIRM(ness) commodityDelight?: questioning the canons, The Proceedings of the Annual Conference of theSociety of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne,Australia,September1998,pp.914.
xi
Glossaryofterms
AbdesthanathespatialalcovethattraditionallyfacilitatedtheMuslimpracticeofablutionAvlijacourtyardBasamcistairsBegBosnianspellingofthetitlebeyorchieftainBezistancoveredbazaarforvaluablegoodsaršijabusinessdistricteifmoodortemperamentalbehaviourDivanhanaawide,semienclosedentryspaceintheBosniantraditionalhouseEsnaftheprofessionalandeconomicorganisationoftheguildsEyâletgovernorategeneralHajatanteroomHalvatroomHamampublicbathHanhotelHanikahhostelwithaschoolforyoungdervishesImaretkitchenforthepoorKaravansarajinnfortravellersandmerchantsKasabasmalltownKuahouseKunstwollenanartisticexpressionembodyingthespiritofthecollectiveKutubhanalibraryMahalaneighbourhood,residentialquarterMedresareligiousschoolMektebelementaryIslamicschoolMerakafeelingofirrationalandleisurelyjoyandpleasureMihrabqiblawallMillets system of selfgoverning religious communities under the OttomangovernmentMimberpulpitMuafnamaadocumentprovidingthecitywithexemptionsfromtaxesMusafirhanainnforpoorpeopleMušepcilatticeworkPašalukOttomanadministrativeunitŠadrvanwaterfountainSahatkulatheclocktowerSandžakcommonlytranslatedas‘province’ŠehertownSejjididescendantsoftheProphet
xii
Steak (plural steci) the gravestones generally accepted as common in preOttomanandearlyOttomantimesinBosniaTašlihansmallinnTeferipicniclikegatheringscommonlyheldbytheMuslimsTekija,zawiya–alodgeofadervishorderTurbemausoleum,tombofthefounderandhisfamilyVakfijaendowmentdeedVakufIslamicpiousendowment
Chapter1Introduction:ArchitectureandIdeologyintheWorkofDušanGrabrijanandJurajNeidhardt
The deliberate destruction of the cultural and built heritage in Bosnia and
Hercegovinaduringthe1992–96waractsasapowerfulreminderofthepotencyof
architecturetocarryapoliticalmessage.Architecture’scapacitytoembodycultural
andpoliticalassociations,evenwhenreducedto rubble,wasdescribedbyAndras
Riedlmayer, expert witness to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Referring to the destroyed National and University Library (former Town
Hall) inSarajevo,hestated, ‘RubbleinBosniaandHerzegovinasignifiesnationalist
extremistshardatworktoeliminatenotonlyhumanbeingsandlivingcitiesbutalso
thememoryofthepast’.1
Thisthesisexploresthecorrelationsbetweenarchitecturalexpressionandpolitical
ideology. Specifically, it investigates the role architecture played in the identity
formation of post–World War Two Yugoslavia, focusing on two architects, whose
writings and designs are considered to embody the collective Bosnian identity of
thesocialistperiod:DušanGrabrijan (1899–1952)and JurajNeidhardt (1901–79).2
1 A. Riedlmayer, ‘Killing memory: the targeting of libraries and archives in Bosnia Herzegovina’,testimonypresentedatahearingoftheCommissiononSecurityandCooperationinEurope,4April1995, p. 51. Andras Riedlmayer was an expert witness to the International Criminal Tribunal forYugoslavia,Miloševitrial,TheHague,2003.2ThespellingofNeidhardt’s surnamevariesand iscommonlyspelledNajdhart. JelicaKapetanovicredits this to Neidhardt’s own insistence to assimilate and accept the phonetic spelling of Serbo
Chapter1
14
Their concept of Bosnian Oriental expression – based on the integration of the
spiritualvaluesembeddedinthehistoricOttomanandIslamicbuiltfabric,andthe
contemporaryandmodernaspirationsofthesocialiststate–becamerecognisedas
aspecificamalgamoflocalandinternationaltrendsinarchitecture.
Togetherandindividually,GrabrijanandNeidhardthavebeencelebratedastwoof
themostimportantpractitionersandtheoristsofpost–WorldWarTwoYugoslavia.
Their ability to ‘penetrate deep into the substance of [Islamic] architectural and
urban heritage’ is seen as central to their capacity to connect local architectural
debateswiththeEuropeanmodernagenda.3However,whiletheircontributionto
thisintegrationhasbeenacknowledged,nodiscussionhasaddressedthenatureof
the relationship expressed in their vision of the modern architecture of Bosnian
Oriental.4 My intention in this thesis is to address that absence, exploring the
interrelation between Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s architectural vision and the
ideologyofsocialism.Iaddressthequestionofhowtheyjustifiedtheincorporation
Croatianlanguage,thustransformingtheGermansoundingNeidhardtintoNajdhart(orNajdhardt).J. Kapetanovi, ‘Stvaralaštvo arhitekte Juraja Najdhardta’, (The architectural work of JurajNeidhardt), PhD thesis, University of Sarajevo, 1988, p. 11. This thesis uses the original spelling‘Neidhardt’,asusedinthecreditsofthebookD.Grabrijan&J.Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity(ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno),LjudskaPravica,Ljubljana,1957.3In2001,intheaftermathofthe1992–96Bosnianwar,theAcademyofScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovinaorganisedaneventtocelebratethecentenaryofNeidhardt’sbirth.Thesignificanceofthiseventandthehighprofilesoftheorganisersandparticipantswereatestamenttoa lastingimpactofNeidhardt’sideasandworkinBosnia.ZlatkoUgljen,anarchitectandarecipientofanAgaKhanAward,inhistributestatedhisadmirationforNeidhardt’s‘sixthsense’.Inthekeynotelecture,whichopenedtheexhibition,ProfessorIbrahimKrzovidescribedtheoccasionas,‘anopportunitytoexpress reverence for the name of one of the best artists in the cultural circles of Bosnia andHerzegovina’.‘TheAcademyofScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovinamarkingthecentenaryofthe birth of the academic Juraj Neidhardt’, catalogue jointly produced by the Academy of ScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovina,andtheArchitecturalFacultyofSarajevoUniversity,Sarajevo,2001.4NumerousarchitectspraisedGrabrijanandNeidhardt’spromotionoftheIslamicheritageofBosnia,asisdiscussedinmoredetailinconclusionofthisthesis.
Chapter1
15
ofIslamicformswithintheirvisionofamodernandsocialistcity,andwhatkindof
politicalandideologicalagendainformedtheirvision.
Thescopeofthethesis:thewritingsofGrabrijanandNeidhardt
It took more than 20 years for the authors to develop their architectural and
theoreticalposition.DušanGrabrijan,originallyfromSlovenia,arrivedinSarajevoin
1929totakeupajobwithMinistryofBuilding(GraevinskaDirekcija).In1930,he
tooka teachingpositionat theSarajevo’sTechnicalSchool,wherehestayeduntil
1945.
Juraj Neidhardt’s architectural career followed a more international path. Upon
completion ofhisarchitectural studiesat theViennaAcademy in1924,Neidhardt
commenced architectural practice in Croatia. In 1930 he left Croatia for Germany
andworkedforarchitectPeterBehrens(1868–1940)between1930and1932,and
forLeCorbusierbetween1932and1936.Ontherecommendationofhislongtime
friend Grabrijan, Neidhardt took up a job with the Bosnia mining engineering
companyandjoinedGrabrijaninBosniain1939.
GrabrijanandNeidhardtcollaboratedontwomajorpublications–‘SarajevoandIts
Satellites’(Sarajevoinjegovitrabanti),publishedin1942,andArchitectureofBosnia
andtheWayTowardsModernity(ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno),published
Chapter1
16
in1957–and it ison theseworks that Iprimarily focus. 5The firstwasproduced
duringtheearlyyearsofGermanoccupationandthesecondunderthecommunist
governmentofsocialistYugoslavia.Whereas‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’presented
theoldasaburdentomodernism,theArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards
Modernityarguedforitscontemporaryrelevance.TheoldurbanfabricofBašaršija
thatwasinitiallypresentedasdetrimentaltoprogresswasidentifiedasthecoreof
thenewsocialistarchitecturalexpression.
Importantly, while the publications are discussed in their chronological order, my
focusisnottheprogressivedevelopmentofthearchitects’ideas.Thesepublications
represent the scope of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s theoretical understanding, and
thisstudyarguesthatthechangeintheirurbanvisionfromthefirsttothesecond
publicationisindicativeofthedevelopmentoftheirmodernistideasaswellastheir
growingawarenessofthespecificsofBosnia’spoliticaldilemmas.
Intemporalterms,IamprimarilyconcernedwithGrabrijanandNeidhardt’surban
proposals for Sarajevo presented in the period between the late 1930s and mid
1960s.Butmydiscussionbothprecedesandextendsbeyondthisperiodbyvirtueof
referencetothehistoricaldevelopmentofSarajevo,aswellastoissuesrelatingto
thelateryearsofsocialism.Thesebriefhistoricaldigressionsservetocapturesome
ofthemostsignificantaspectsofdebatesconcerningIslamic/Orientalheritage.
5 D. Grabrijan & J. Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ ’ (Sarajevo i njegovi trabanti), TehnikiVjesnik,br.7–9,Zagreb,1942;Grabrijan&J.Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity(ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno),LjudskaPravica,Ljubljana,1957.
Chapter1
17
Scopeoftheargument:theroleofarchitectureincreatinganationalidentity
GrabrijanandNeidhardtfrequentlystatedthattheirinterestinhistoricarchitecture
was‘nottoreturntoOttomantimesorthelifeofthattime’but‘tobuilduponthe
achievementsofthepast’.6Tradition,theyargued,wastobeusedasavehiclefor
developingnewideas.Inthiscontext,Bašaršija–thehistoricprecinctofSarajevo
establishedbytheOttomans–gainedparticularsignificance.
Bosnia’s Islamic origins and the particularities of its historical development were
highly problematic during the period under review. Longstanding Serb and Croat
nationalistviews,aswellasYugoslavsecularistopinion,contestedtheirrelevance.
While approaching the subject from completely different positions, the ruling
CommunistPartyofYugoslaviaandthenationalistsalikechallengedtherelevance
of the Ottoman cultural legacy to the new socialist state of Bosnia and
Hercegovina.7 Maria Todorova argues that it is in the discussion of the Ottoman
Empire’srolethatnationalistandMarxistagendasintersected.8Inthenationalists’
case, the Ottoman Empire was perceived as an obstacle to national (organic)
development of culture. In the Marxist interpretation, the Ottoman Empire was
6Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.7 It is importanttonotethatthetwoforcesdidnothavethesamepowerorrepresentationinthepoliticalarenaofformerYugoslavia.SocialistYugoslaviawasaonepartypoliticalsystem,headedbytheCommunistPartyofYugoslavia.Whilethereweremanydifferentnationalists’claims,whichalsochanged over the course of socialist government, the most significant in regards to the OttomanheritageofBosniaarethoseoftheSerbianandCroatiannationalists.TheybasedtheirclaimsontheChristianoriginsofBosnia,questioningtheterritorialintegrityoftheBosnianstate.8M.Todorova,‘TheOttomanlegacyintheBalkans’,inC.Brown(ed.),ImperialLegacy,TheOttomanImprintontheBalkansandtheMiddleEast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,pp.45–77.
Chapter1
18
seen as essentially feudal and backward, and therefore its legacy was one that
hinderedprogressandmodernisation.9
The absence of a welldefined national identity for Bosnia provided a space for
competing narratives to emerge,10 the most significant of which are discussed in
this thesis. They are the socialist interpretation of Bosnia as a symbol of a united
Yugoslavia; the secular Bosnian Muslim, Serb and Croat articulation of a common
identity for the inhabitants of the Bosnian state; and the historical and ongoing
nationalist debates (both Serbian and Croatian) that denied collective Bosnian
identity and the existence of the very notion of ‘Bosnianness’.11 The dialectic
between the absence of any formal recognition of the Bosnian nation and the
search fora collective expression of ‘Bosnianness’ became a mode of structuring
theculturalimagination.
TheurbancoreofBašaršijabecamethesubjectofintensestudyforGrabrijanand
Neidhardt.InanattempttoovercomethelimitationsposedbyitsOttomanismand
to include this urban core in both Bosnian and Yugoslav national narratives, they
resortedtoauniqueinterpretationoftheOttomanandthemodern.Thevisionof
modern architecture presented in their writings and design work identified
architecture as a force capable of negotiating the complex relationship between
9Todorova,‘TheOttomanlegacyintheBalkans’,pp.45–77.10 In articulating certain dominant national narratives I do not deny the existence of multiplenationalistclaimsprevalentinpost–WorldWarTwoBosnia.11Theterm‘Bosnianness’ isadoptedfromdiscussionsofthequalitiesassociatedwiththeculturalconstruct of being Bosnian, discussed in A. Buturovi, ‘Producing and annihilating the ethos ofBosnianIslam’,CulturalSurvivalQuarterly,summer1995,pp.29–33.
Chapter1
19
modernist, nationalist and socialist/communist agendas of post–World War Two
Yugoslavia. And while the analysis of their work identifies numerous embedded
contradictions, the significance of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s contribution, it is
suggested,liesintheirabilitytodissociate,albeittemporarily,theIslamichistorical
fabric of Sarajevo from its former colonial ties, instead establishing a secular and
moderncontextforitsinterpretation.
Thesiscontribution:architecture,identityandpoliticsofculture
The1992–96warbroughtforwarddiscussionofthesignificanceofculturalpolitics
in theconstructionanddestruction ofYugoslavia’s identity. Inanattempt todeal
withthesocialandpoliticalforcesthatcontributedtothecountry’sdisintegration,
an increasingnumber of scholars focusedon the roleof collectivememory in the
culturalprocessesaccompanyingtheconstructionofanationofYugoslavs.
Andrew Wachtel’s book Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation is among the most
embracing and ambitious projects of this kind. It considers the construction of
Yugoslav unity in a range of ways: linguistic policies and language; literary and
artistic canons interpreted as supportive of Yugoslav ideals; educational policies;
and the production of new literature and art that incorporated the various and
changingviewsoftheYugoslavideal.12
12 A. Wachtel, Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation, Literature and Cultural Politics in Yugoslavia,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,Ca.,1998,p.5.
Chapter1
20
AlthoughWachtel’sattention is largelyon formsofculturalexpressionother than
architecture, he acknowledged the contribution made by Croatian architect Ivan
Meštrovi(1883–1962).IntheperiodbeforeandduringWorldWarOne,Meštrovi
became one of the leading representatives of a new kind of synthetic Yugoslav
culture.13PromotedmostlybytheYugoslavelite,thiswasbasedontheassumption
that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were members of a single nation. Cultural
expression that would represent this multicultural Yugoslav nation would thus
synthesisethebestelementsofeachoftheseparateSouthSlavic‘tribes’.14Despite
thepotentialofthisdiversitytocontributetotheideaofamultiethnicYugoslavia,
Wachtel’sstudypresentsonlylimiteddiscussionofBosnianartistsandnomention
ofBosnianarchitecture.
Someaspectsofthisdeficiencyhavebeenrecentlyaddressed.Forexample,Amila
Buturovi’s examination of the poetry and literature of Bosnian writers such as
Mehmedalija Meša Selimovi (1910–82) and Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar (1917–71)
hasrevealedtheirinvolvementwithdebatessurroundingtheidentityofBosnia.15In
StoneSleeper,ButurovidiscussesMakDizdar’spoetryandhisuseofthemediaeval
tombstone steak in the ‘recovery’ of medieval voices in the imaginations of
contemporaryBosnians.However,whileherstudychallenges theviewofBosnian
identity divided alongethnic lines,offeringa view of culture built upon pluralistic
13Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.54.14Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.73.15 A. Buturovi (trans. Francis R. Jones), Stone Speaker,Medieval Tombs. Landscape, and BosnianIdentity in the Poetry of Mak Dizdar, Palgrave, New York, 2002; Buturovi, ‘Producing andannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’,pp.29–33;andButurovi,‘Nationalquestandtheanguishofsalvation:BosnianMuslimidentityinMešaSelimoviDervishandDeath’,Edebiyat,7,spring1996,YorkUniversity,Toronto,np.
Chapter1
21
societyanditsideals, it isstillfocusedonliterarytexts. Inthisthesis Iproposeto
add to the discussion by presenting Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s work as a
contributiontothemulticulturalandmultiethnicYugoslav ideologicalagenda,and
by extending the examination of forms of cultural expression to architecture and
urbandesign.
MyanalysisbuildsuponexistingrecognitionoftheworkofGrabrijanandNeidhardt
as architects that connected the international modernist agenda with local
architectural debates, bringing ‘the freshest ideas of modern architecture’ to the
Bosniancontext.16ProfessorofarchitectureatSarajevoUniversityandarecipientof
theAgaKhanAward(1983),ZlatkoUgljencitedNeidhardt’s influenceascrucialto
hisownarchitecturaldevelopment.Neidhardt’swork,Ugljenstated,presented‘the
synthesis of the universal and regional, representing firmly the [ideas of] modern
architecture’.17
In his Modern Architecture of Croatia Between the Two World Wars (Hrvatska
moderna architektura izmedju dva rata), Tomislav Premerl, too, presented
Neidhardt as a major player in creating modern architecture in the Yugoslav
territories:
ItisthroughtheworkofNeidhardtthatourarchitecturewasstronglyconnectedto
the main European centre. He directly transferred and modified the ideas of Le
Corbusier toourcontext…Neidhardtachieved thesynthesisof logical traditional
16 Amir Zec, a contemporary Bosnian architect, in an interview with Emir Imamovi, ‘Mercator isbadly positioned’, inBosanskohercegovaki DANI, independent news magazine, special edition onurbanism,URBICID,Sarajevo,June2003.17S.Roš&A.Rusan,‘InterviewwithZlatkoUgljen’,Oris,3/12,2001,pp.4–31.
Chapter1
22
elements and the new achievements, paying a special attention to the relation
between the individual buildings, their immediate surroundings and the broader
city contexts or the landscape. The presence of Neidhardt’s ideas in architectural
debatesbetweenthetwowarsisfelttodayasanimportantlinknotonlyinbuilding
newspatialvaluesatthetime,butinlinkingustotheworldandtheworldtous.18
This view was restated in the extensive anthology of Yugoslav modernity titled
Impossible Histories, Historical Avantgardes, Neoavantgardes, and Postavant
gardes inYugoslavia,1918–1991.19There,SlovenianacademicandarchitectPeter
Krei recognised Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s ability ‘to blend the qualities of the
traditionalhousewithcontemporarytrends,’butwithoutanyinvestigationofsuch
integration.20PresentingNeidhardt’sowndesigns,suchastheworkers’housing in
Zenica (1938) and the building of the State Mining School (1938), as ‘notable
example[s] of the faithful transfer of Le Corbusier’s principles of architecture to
Bosnia’, Krei maintained that the primary contribution of their work was its
capacitytoextendtheinternationalmodernistideastotheYugoslavterritories.
In2001,intheaftermathofthe1992–96Bosnianwar,theAcademyofScienceand
ArtsofBosniaandHercegovinacelebratedthecentenaryofNeidhardt’sbirthwith
anexhibitionandconference.Whilestill focusedonthemodernityofNeidhardt’s
opus,thediscussionrecognisedGrabrijanandhiscapacityto ‘penetratedeep into
thesubstanceof thearchitecturalandurbanheritage’ofBosnia,andto integrate
18 T. Premerl, Hrvatska Moderna Arhitektura Izmedju Dva Rata (Modern Architecture of CroatiaBetweentheTwoWorldWars),NakladniZavodMaticeHrvatske,Zagreb,1989,p.16.19P.Krei,‘ArchitectureinformerYugoslavia,fromtheavantgardetothepostmodernimpossiblehistories’,inD.Djuri&M.Šuvakovi(eds),ImpossibleHistories,HistoricalAvantgardes,Neoavantgardes,andPostavantgardesinYugoslavia,1918–1991,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,2003,pp.332–73.20 Krei, ‘Architecture in former Yugoslavia, from the avantgarde to the postmodern impossiblehistories’,p.346.
Chapter1
23
theIslamiccomponentintheircollaborativevision.21However,noexaminationof
that vision was presented and no indication of the importance of the political
contextwasrecognised.
Thisthesisextendsandfillsthegapsintheexistingliteratureintwoways:firstly,it
develops debate on the relationship between modern architecture and the
ideological grounding of Yugoslav socialism; and secondly, it highlights the
important role architecture plays in constructing identity, as well as in its
destruction.
Theoretical framework: overlapping fields of architecture, identity, culture andpoliticsofYugoslavia
Inbringingarchitecturalandpoliticaldiscoursestogether,IuseFoucault’stechnique
of‘problematisation’;thatis,Ihighlighttheconnectionsbetweenpoliticalissuesin
‘the historical and structural conditions which gave rise to them’.22 Accepting the
premise of ‘discourse theory’, which presents all objects and practices as
meaningful and all social meanings as contextual, relational and contingent, I
examineGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussionofBosnianOrientalasanattemptto
embed the specific views of the Bosnian nation – its past and present – in the
languageofmodernarchitecture.23
21 Zlatko Ugljen, in The Academy of Science and Arts of Bosnia and Hercegovina Marking theCentenary of theBirth ofAcademic JurajNeidhardt, Academy of Science and Arts of BiH, and theArchitecturalFacultyoftheUniversityofSarajevo,Sarajevo,2001,p.34.22 D. Howarth & J. Torfing (eds), Discourse Theory in European Politics, Identity, Policy andGovernance,Palgrave,Macmillan,NewYork,2005,p.318.23 For a discussion of discourse theory and method see Howarth & Torfing, Discourse Theory inEuropeanPolitics,Identity,PolicyandGovernance,pp.316347.
Chapter1
24
The work of British cultural historian Stuart Hall provides the theoretical
underpinning for interpreting Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s architectural efforts in
relation todebateson identity.24Hallpresents identityasaprocess that is ‘never
completed’.25A ‘processofbecomingratherthanbeing’,hisconcept isbuiltupon
anunderstandingthatidentitiesare:
...neverunifiedand,inlatemoderntimes,increasinglyfragmentedandfractured;
never singular but multiply constructed across different, often intersecting and
antagonistic,discourses,practicesandpositions.26
Hall’s understanding of identity stands in opposition to essentialist views that
assume a ‘stable core of self unfolding from beginning to end through all the
vicissitudesofhistorywithoutchange’.27Heargues that identitiesarenotunified,
but‘areconstantlyintheprocessofchangeandtransformation’.28
Considered within the parameters of Hall’s discussion, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s
Bosnian Oriental represents a model of identity that is demonstrative of the
transientandconstructednatureofidentitycreation.Theirprocessofdefiningthe
BosnianOrientalinvolved‘theinventionoftradition’asmuchas‘traditionitself’.29
24 In his essay ‘Who needs 'identity'?’, Stuart Hall argues that the ‘natural’ definition of identitypresupposesastablecoreoftheselfthatremainsstaticacrosstime,andhasanorigin,historyandancestrysharedbypeoplebelongingtoaparticulargroup.Yet,contemporaryscholarsarguethattheconceptofa‘stablecoreoftheself’,orhomogenicnotionofidentity,actuallymasksthepluralityofpositionsbehindeach ‘identity’.According to Hall, there isa complex relationbetween these twoconcepts.Hall,inS.Hall&P.DuGay(eds),QuestionsofCulturalIdentity,Sage,London,1996,pp.1–35.25Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.26Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.27Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,pp.3–4.28Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.29Theterm‘inventedtraditions’isusedinreferencetoE.Hobsbawm&T.Ranger,TheInventionofTradition,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cantoedition,1992.Thistextonnationalismpresents‘traditions’asemergingthroughsystematically;ofteninstitutionally,produceddiscourseandknowledge.
Chapter1
25
It activated ‘the resources of history, language and culture’30 in a way that was
evocativeoftheprocessofcreatingarchitectureasaformofartthatis‘constituted
within not outside representation’.31 Precisely because Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s
model of Bosnian Oriental is constructed within a specific political context it is
importanttounderstanditsrelationshiptothehistoricalandinstitutionalsitesfrom
which it emerged, gaining meaning and significance.32 This relationship
demonstratesthatthesearchforidentityis‘notthesocalledreturntoroots’buta
processof‘comingtotermswithour“routes”’.33Byunderstandingtheframework
of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of Sarajevo’s historic fabric, my aim is to
identifytheimpactofthesociopoliticalcontextontheirrepresentationandonthe
meaningstheyattachedtoit.
Tolinkurbanandpoliticaldebates,thisstudybuildsuponapproachesdevelopedby
scholars such as Zeynep Çelik, Mary McLeod and Sibel Bozdogan, who have
intertwinedtheanalysisofurbanhistorywiththestudyof‘urbanprocesses’.34Çelik
suggests that this approach to urban history considers the diverse forces that
impact on the urban environment, namely social, economic, political, technical,
artistic and cultural factors.35 Drawing on Henri Lefebvre, Çelik argues that this
30Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.31Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.32Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.33Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.34Particularlyrelevanttothetheoreticalunderpinningofthisthesis is thediscussionpresentedbyProfessor Zeynep Çelik in Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations, Algiers under French Rule,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1997.AlsoseeS.Bozdogan&R.Kasaba(eds.),ModernismandNation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic, University of WashingtonPress, Washington DC, 2001; and M. McLeod, ‘Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from regionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,PhDthesis,PrincetonUniversity,1985.35ForfurtherdiscussionseeÇelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.5.
Chapter1
26
method of analysis allows for the uncovering of a diverse set of relationships,
inherenttotheproductionofspace,andpresentsanalternativetounderstanding
spacesimplyas‘space“initself”’.36Çelikmaintainsthatthisemphasisonthe‘long
history of space’, rather than on ‘chronologically fixed urban forms,’37 helps in
understandingthewaysinwhich‘societiesgeneratetheir(social)spaceandtime–
their representational spaces and their representations of space’.38 By examining
the relationship between architectural form and the methods by which it is
interpreted–bothinthewrittenwordandthroughdesign–Iaimtodemonstrate
the interconnections between architectural discourse and the ideological context
withinwhichitisproduced.39
Therelationshipbetweensocialistideologyandthespecificsofarchitecturaldesign
promoted in Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s writing is thus considered within the
framework of contemporary discourse on memory, history and identity. French
historianPierreNoraprovidesacontextforthediscussionofthoserelationships.He
suggests that sites gain significance when they no longer form part of daily life,
arguingthatsitesofmemory(lieuxdemémoire)emergeatpointsof rupturewith
the past, where the real environments of memory (milieux de mémoire)
disappear.40Oftenpromptedbychangesinsocialconditions,suchatransformation
releases a site of the specific collective memory attached to it, allowing multiple
36Çelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.5.37Çelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.5.38Çelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.4.39 J. M. Schwarting, ‘Postscript’, in B. Colomina (ed.), Architectureproduction [sic.], PrincetonArchitecturalPress,NewYork,1988,pp.246–53.40 I draw from a number of essays presented in P. Nora (ed.),RealmsofMemory: Rethinking theFrenchPast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,1998.
Chapter1
27
interpretations.Consequently,a‘siteofmemory’emergesinanattempttofixtime
andtostabilisethesite’smeaning.Whileseeminglystable, ‘sitesofmemory’have
thecapacitytoconstantlygeneratenewsocialmeanings.41Consideredwithinsuch
aframework,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’svisionsforBašaršijapresentanattemptto
transform the site by assigning the urban fabric new meanings, accepted and
alignedwithnewsocialistidentity.
ThestudybuildsuponBenedictAnderson’swellknownanalysisofthenationalism
andnationbuildingprocesspresentedinthebookImaginedCommunities.42Arguing
that thenation isnotagivenhistoricalentitybutaconstructedand ‘an imagined
political community,’ Anderson presents ‘nationality … as well as nationalism’ as
‘cultural artefacts’. 43 By intertwining their architectural studies of the Ottoman
historicbuiltfabricwithintheirvisionoftheBosniannationGrabrijanandNeidhardt
offeredtorenegotiatethehistoricalandspatialgroundingofBosniannation.
In relating the individual experience of an architect such as Juraj Neidhardt to a
broader sociopolitical milieu, I am indebted to the work of Jelica Kapetanovi,
notablyherdoctoral thesis.UndertakenattheUniversityofSarajevo in1988,and
publishedasJurajNeidhardt,LifeandWorkin1990,thethesispresentsabiography
of Neidhardt.44 It offers a comprehensive overview of the architect’s life, his
41Nora(ed.),RealmsofMemory:RethinkingtheFrenchPast.42B.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism,Verso,London,NewYork,1992,13.43B.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,13.44 J. Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural work of Juraj Neidhardt’; J.KarliKapetanovi, JurajNajdhart,životidjelo(JurajNeidhardt,LifeandWork),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1990.
Chapter1
28
professionalengagementsinleadingEuropeanarchitecturalpractices,aswellasthe
personal dilemmas and professional challenges he faced during his lifetime.
Permeating theaccount isKapetanovi’sadmiration forboth thepersonaandthe
work of her longtime colleague and mentor, Professor Neidhardt. By
contextualisingNeidhardt’sworkinrelationtothecriticaldebateswithinwhichhis
and Grabrijan’s work circulated – namely socialism/communism, modernity and
modernism–myworkheretakesKapetanovi’sdiscussionastepforward.
Sources
This thesis draws on the following principal sources: the two publications written
collaborativelybyGrabrijanandNeidhardt,Grabrijan’sseparatelyauthoredwritings
andNeidhardt’sdesignwork.
‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, was only published in SerboCroatian, and the
translations of all quoted material are my own. The original SerboCroatian has
been placed in footnotes. The second collaborative publication, Architecture of
Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity, was published in English and Serbo
Croatian, so the original English translations have been used (unless otherwise
stated).Ihavealsotranslatedadditionalsources(unlessotherwisestated),suchas
Grabrijan’sarticlesinSerboCroatianandhisbookPlenikandHisSchool,published
in Slovenian (Plenik in Njegova Šola, edited and published by Nada Grabrijan).
Again,theoriginalquoteshavebeenplacedinfootnotes.
Chapter1
29
In the 1980s, Mrs Nada Grabrijan, the widow of Dušan Grabrijan, and Ms Tanja
Neidhardt,thedaughterofJurajNeidhardt,wereengagedinalengthylegaldispute
overtheauthors’individualcontributionstothecollaborativeworks.MrsGrabrijan
argued for greater recognition of her late husband’s contribution.45 While I
recognise the significance and complexities of the dispute, I do not consider it
relevant to the discussion presented here. I explore and reexamine individual
contributions in the collaborative works, and while efforts have been made to
recognisetheimportanceofindividualcontributionssuchconsiderationsarenotof
majorconcern.Grabrijan’srelativelyshortstayinSarajevoandhisprematuredeath
at the age of 53 (five years before Architecture of Bosnia and theWay Towards
Modernity was published) in the end made Neidhardt the main advocate of the
Bosnian Oriental. Nevertheless, Grabrijan’s writing underpinned Neidhardt’s
understandingofBosnianarchitecturalheritage,andNeidhardt’sownarchitectural
designiscommonlypresentedasacollaborativeeffort.
Thesisoutline:thedevelopmentoftheargument
In summary, I argue in this thesis that while there were previous attempts to
integratetheIslamicpastintoarchitecturaldebates,GrabrijanandNeidhardtwere
thefirsttoamalgamatetheOttomanhistoricalfabricwiththenewsocialistculture
inasinglevision.46ThistheytermedBosnianOrientalexpression,anditwasmade
45 The Architectural Museum in Ljubljana contains archives of Grabrijan’s work, as well as thedocumentationofthiscourtcase.[FužineCastle,ArchitectureMuseumofLjubljana,Slovenia.]46 Particularly relevant is the discussion of attempts made by architects of the Austro–Hungarianperiod to construct a ‘style’ responsive to the specifics of Bosnian condition. The work ofarchitecturalhistorianNedžadKurtoismostrelevant:seehisArhitekturaBosneIHercegovine,razvojBosanskog Stila, (Architecture of Bosnia and Hercegovina and the Development of Bosnian Style),Medjunarodni Centar za Mir, Sarajevo, 1998; and ‘Arhitektura Secesije u Sarajevu’ (Secession
Chapter1
30
possiblebythechangesoccurringinthepoliticalandculturaldebatesofthe1950s
inYugoslavia,andinBosniaspecifically.
IpresentatwopartdevelopmentofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sposition.Following
theintroduction(chapterone)partoneofthethesis(chapterstwotofour)analyses
the development of their theoretical agenda. It specifically focuses on the
articulation of the relationship between the historical fabric of Bašaršija and the
new city. Chapter two investigates Grabrijan’s early writings. It is in these articles
that he identifies the Ottoman/Islamic heritage of Sarajevo as theKunstwollen, a
modelofculturerepresentativeofcollectiveBosnianvalues.Grabrijan’sintegration
of specific Islamic forms within this vision of Bosnian architecture provided a
theoretical argument for the place of this heritage in debates on modern
architecture. This would later underpin Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s collaborative
agenda.However,asthechapterconcludes,thepromotionoftheIslamicheritage
as representative of Bosnian collective identity went against dominant nationalist
views,whichdeniedtherelevanceoftheIslamicpasttocontemporaryBosnia.The
historicallinksbetweenMuslimsofBosniaandtheOttomancolonialpower,which
brought Islam to Bosnia, problematised the future of Ottoman architectural and
culturalheritageinBosnia.Thechapterhighlightsthecontradictions inGrabrijan’s
interpretationofthisheritageascentraltounderstandinghisoverallargumentand
thelatercollaborativeworks.
architecture of Sarajevo), PhD thesis, University of Zagreb, 1988. See also, I. Krzovi, ArhitekturaBosneiHercegovine,1878–1918, (ArchitectureofBosniaandHerzegovina,18781918),UmjetnikaGalerijaBiH,Sarajevo,1987.
Chapter1
31
ChapterthreeanalysesGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sfirstcollaborativework,‘Sarajevo
andItsSatellites’.ThiswasanattempttointegratethespecificallyIslamicformsof
Bašaršijawithintheirvisionofanewurbanmasterplan.Thechaptershowsthatin
developing an argument about the relationship between the old precinct and the
city their discussion begins to move away from the approach established in
Grabrijan’s earlier writings. They gradually abandoned the search for the
authenticity and specificity of the old fabric, and ultimately presented Bašaršija
and the people inhabiting it in a stereotypical Orientalist mode that highlighted
oppositionalrelationshipsbetweenIslamandChristianity,EastandWest.Unableto
dealwiththecomplexpoliticalandurbanissuesthatsurroundedtheoldprecinct,
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s master plan marginalised the heritage fabric in their
visionofanewcity.Thispositionwasindirectoppositiontotheviewspresentedin
theirsubsequentbook.
Chapter four analyses Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity,
publishedin1957,attheheightofYugoslavsocialism.Thechapterarguesthatthe
processofsecularisingYugoslavsocietyprovidedanopportunityfortheauthorsto
repositiontheirworkbyaligningtheirartisticvisionwiththesocialistframework.In
particular,anewpoliticalcategoryofBosnianMuslim–notareligiousgroup,buta
particular national entity – allowed Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s concept of Bosnian
Oriental expression to be contextualised within the Yugoslav socialist and
communist ideology. The vision of the modern city presented in this book was
grounded on the integration, not rejection, of the city’s historical fabric and
Chapter1
32
specifically the Ottomanestablished precinct of Bašaršija. This new position
allowed the authors, and Neidhardt in particular, to transform this theoretical
positionintoarchitecturalpractice.
Part two of the thesis (chapters five and six) charts the transformation of the
theoretical into an architectural agenda. Chapter five discusses the effects of the
theoreticalshiftfrom‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’totheArchitectureofBosniaand
theWayTowardsModernity.Itarguesthattheemphasisplacedontherationaland
functional design aspects of the Bašaršija precinct provided the framework that
allowed for the ideological separation of traditional forms from their historical
associations.Oncetheoldfabricwasreinterpretedwithinmodernparadigms,itwas
possible forNeidhardt, thepractisingarchitectof the two, toutilise thismodelof
Bosnian Oriental in creating some of his most prominent designs, which included
theBašaršijaproposalandthedesignoftheBosnianparliamentprecinct.
Chapter six examines two projects undertaken by Neidhardt in 1950s – the New
aršijaproject(1953)andtheproposalfortheMarindvorprecinct,whichincluded
thebuildingoftheNationalParliamentofBosnia(1955).Itarguesthatbothprojects
embody Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s attempts to interrelate political and cultural
debates.TheunderlyingsecularisationofthereligiousstructuresintheNewaršija
project,amongothers,andtheinsertionofnonreligiousestablishmentsinreligious
buildingsonlyservedtoconfirmNeidhardt’sdesiretorestructurethe Islamicpast
to fit the socialist present. The chapter further argues that the proposal for the
Chapter1
33
Marindvor precinct and the National Parliament of Bosnia demonstrated
Neidhardt’s insistence on presenting the Bosnian Oriental as a synthetic style,
vestedwithacapacitytointegratethepast,presentandfutureofthearchitecture
ofsocialism.
My conclusion, chapter seven, confirms that Neidhardt and Grabrijan’s design
proposalsandtheoreticalwritingspresentedavisionofarchitectureframedbythe
identitydebatesofsocialistYugoslavia.Theintegrationofarchitecturalandpolitical
agendas in their work demonstrates the significant role architecture can play in
constructing and deconstructing cultural identity. The chapter concludes with the
contributionofthisthesisto itsareaofstudyandoffersviewsregardingpotential
researchinthearea.
PARTONE:DevelopingaTheoreticalFramework
Chapter2TheKunstwollenofBosnia
Inthe late1930sDušanGrabrijanpublishedaseriesofarticlesthataddressedthe
urban heritage issues of Sarajevo and the Ottomanestablished historic precinct
Bašaršija.Heidentifiedtheprecinct’sculturalcharacterasanauthenticreflection
oflocalculture,andassociateditsarchitecturalformswiththespecificallyBosnian
conditionandaformofKunstwollen–anartisticexpressionembodyingthespiritof
thecollective.
This chapter argues that Grabrijan’s interest in exploring the heritage fabric of
Sarajevo was inspired by his teacher Jože Plenik. In his practice and teaching
Plenikpromotedtheintegrationofhistoricremnantswithinnewurbanproposals
and considered historic fabric vital to the creation of new architecture. In an
attempttoextendsuchanapproachtoBosnia,Grabrijan’searlywritingsidentified
intheformsofBašaršijatheauthenticityandinspirationneededforthecreationof
thenew.However,unlikeinSlovenia,wheresuchconnectionsenjoyedthesupport
of the authorities, in Bosnia the urban forms of Bašaršija were viewed with
scepticismandresistance.DuetoBašaršija’shistoricconnectionstotheOttoman
colonial times and the dominance of Islam over Christianity, the Serb and Croat
nationalistideologiescontesteditsrelevance.Consequentlythisheritagefabricwas
Chapter2
38
consideredasaparochialarchitecturalexpressionof the formerOttomanEmpire.
Itsintegrationintonewurbanapproacheswascommonlyrejected.
Inanattempttocurbthisresistance,Grabrijanbegantopresentadifferentviewof
theheritagefabric’sroleinnewurbandevelopmentfromtheoneproposedbyhis
teacher.No longer interested inconnectinghistoric remnants to theirartisticand
historical origins, Grabrijan identified their contemporary relevance and their
modernity. This chapter concludes that while Grabrijan’s views did not receive
public or official support at the time, his writings established the theoretical
groundingforwhatbecamehisandNeidhardt’scollaborativework.Laterchapters
arguethattheideaspropoundedbyGrabrijaninhisvisionofBosnianKunstwollen
provide the basis for the political success of the concept of Bosnian Oriental,
promotedduringtheyearsofYugoslavsocialism.
‘Nottofindanew,buttoshowitanew’:Plenik’sarchitectureandteaching
Between1920and1924DušanGrabrijanattendedJožePlenik’sclassintheSchool
of Architecture at the newly established University of Ljubljana, in Slovenia.1
Plenik’s approach to architectural design and teaching made a significant
impressiononGrabrijan.Hekeptathoroughrecordoftheschooldiscussions,which
waspublishedin1968undertitlePlenikandHisSchool(PlenikinNjegovaŠola).2
1AnumberofmonographsareavailableontheworkandlifeofJožePlenik,suchas:D.Prelovšek,Jože Plenik 1872–1957, Architectura Perennis, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997; P. Krei,Plenik,theCompleteWorks,AcademyEditions,Ernst&Sons,UnitedKingdom,1993;F.Burkhardt,C.Eveno&B.Podreca,JožePlenikArchitect:1872–1957,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1989.2 As a student of the first generation of Ljubljana school and a member of the group ‘Hearth ofAcademic Architects’, Grabrijan’s book became a record of the debates and casual conversationswithintheschool,aswellasGrabrijan’sownviewofPlenikandarangeofhisarticles.Grabrijan,
Chapter2
39
BythetimePlenikstartedteachinginLjubljana,hewasalreadywellknownandan
experiencedarchitecturalteacherandpractitioner.HewaseducatedattheSchool
ofAppliedArtsinGraz(1888–92),andstudiedwithOttoWagnerattheAcademyof
Art inVienna(1895–98). In1911–12,hewasrecommendedtosucceedWagnerat
theAcademyofArt,butastheMinistryofEducationandReligionturneddownthe
proposal, Plenik took up the professorship at the College of Arts and Crafts in
Prague(1911–21).3Plenik’sactiveprofessionallifeinPrague,andhisinvolvement
with the design of the presidential Castle at Hradany (area around the castle)
securedhimaspecialplaceinhishometown.4
TheopeningoftheschoolfollowedtherecentunificationofSouthSlavs(Yugoslavs
intheSerboCroatian languagegroup)–namelySerbs,CroatsandSlovenes– into
one state in 1918.5 The new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians aimed at
transcendingthedifferencesbetweenthediverselanguages,religionsandhistorical
PlenikinNjegovaŠola.Compilation,editingandillustrationselectionwasdonebyGrabrijan’swife,NadaGrabrijan,sixteenyearsafterherhusband’sdeath.3Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957.4Whenin1921PlenikreturnedtoSloveniatotakeuptheacademicposition,hewasdisillusionedwith his European appointments. But he continued his professional involvements abroad, onprojectssuchwastherenovationofPraguecastle.PlenikwasappointedarchitectoftheHradanycastlerenovationinPraguebytheCzechpresident,Masaryk,overtheperiod1920–35.5The ideaofYugoslaviarestedontheassumptionthattheSouthSlavswereasingleethnicgroupthatshould,likeEuropeannationstates,liveinasinglestatewithasharedlanguageandculture.Inhistorical terms, the origins of Yugoslavia as a unified South Slavic state – the Kingdom of Serbs,CroatsandSlovenians–werelinkedtothedisintegrationoftheAustro–HungarianEmpireattheendofWorldWarOne,in1918.TheruleoftheHabsburgmonarchywasformallyrenouncedandpowerhandedovertotheNationalCouncil,whichdeclaredthenewKingdomofSlovens,CroatsandSerbs(1918–29)–latertransformedintotheKingdomofYugoslavia(1929–41).TheKingdomofYugoslavia– a more unifying term than the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians – was headed by theKaradjordjevifamilyofSerbiaproper.FollowingthecommunistvictoryoftheWorldWarTwo,thenew state of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–92) emerged. This statedisintegratedinthewakeofthe1992–96war,givingrisetoanewstateoftheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia(1992–2003),whichmostlycoveredtheSerbianterritory.
Chapter2
40
experiences of its constituents [Figure 1]. While the contents of this vision of
commonality were not popularly agreed upon, many shared the belief in the
possibilityofdefiningandarticulatingaunifiedYugoslavcultureandpeople.
Figure 1: Territorial division of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia19181921.Source:Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.113.
Grabrijanrecordednumerousdiscussions in JožePlenikclass,whichexploredthe
potentialofarchitecturetorepresentthepotencyofpoliticalchanges.6Unlikethe
Serb and Croat intellectuals, who by virtue of ethnic origin have historically been
thepoliticalcoreof the ideaofYugoslavia,Plenik’spositionwasmouldedby the
verymarginalityofhisSloveneness.7Further,despitethelongculturalheritageof
Slovenia’scapitalcity,Ljubljana,itwasnotacapitalofanindependentstate.Itwas
6D.Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola (PlenikandHisSchool),ZaložbaObzorja,Maribor,Slovenia,1968.7SloveniainhabitsarathercompactterritoryonthewesternendoftheKingdomofYugoslavia.Itspopulation is highly homogenous. The Slovenes, who are predominantly Catholic, speak a distinctlanguage,theliterarytraditionsofwhichcouldbetracedbacktothe16thcentury.Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.30.
Chapter2
41
consideredlesssignificantthanothercentresofthenewlyformedKingdomofSerb,
CroatsandSlovenes–thecitiesofBelgradeandZagreb.
Thenewlycreatedstate,however,promisedtoprovideopportunitiesforallwithin
itsboundaries,andbothPlenikandGrabrijanexpressedadesiretotakeadvantage
of thenewdevelopments.8ThearthistorianDamjanPrelovšekstates that related
issues occupied Plenik’s mind for many years while working in various European
centres.Loyaltytohis‘smallcountry’,Prelovšekwrites,weighedonPlenikandhe
‘feltobligedtomakegoodsomeoftheshortcomingsof itsculture’.9Writingfrom
Vienna to his brother Andrej, before his return to Ljubljana, Plenik described his
feelingofisolationamongtheGermanicpeople:
This is a German Vienna – and I want nothing more than to be increasingly a
Carniolan–aSlovene– inthesamewayasmyparents,ontheonehand,andon
theotherhandIdon’twanttodistancemyselfinprogressing,orratherdeveloping,
fromwhatisnativetome.Itisinfactallwasteland–wehavenothing–andyetin
thisperiodIhaveobservedourcharacter,andwastakenbyit.10
OncePlenikcamebacktoLjubljana,hisarchitecturalapproachwasframedbyhis
desire to identify and transform the unique qualities of his people into an artistic
expression.
Underpinning Plenik’s approach was his interest in history. Congruent with his
belief that the role of an architect was ‘not to find a new, but to show it anew’,
8 On 28 June 1921 the first Yugoslavia came into being as the constitutional, parliamentary andhereditary Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. In 1929 it was renamed the Kingdom ofYugoslavia.J.Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1996,p.125.9QuotedinPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.13.10QuotedinPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.13.Undatedletter.
Chapter2
42
Plenik’s designs commonly integrated an historic remnant within new urban
plans.11GrabrijanrecordedPlenik’smaximthat‘Ifwealwayswanttodiscoverthe
new, we would get nowhere, for our life is too short …’12 Plenik also frequently
statedinclassthattheinspirationforhispracticecamefromtherecognitionofthe
historicurbanartefactsofhishometown,Ljubljana.
Grabrijan’srecordsshowhighpraiseforPlenik’sarchitecturalachievementsinthe
urbantransformationofLjubljana.13ItwasPlenik‘sconversionofthesmallobjects
scattered around town into something new and significant that fascinated
Grabrijan.14 ‘He was a master in accommodating and discovering the old,
unanticipated beauty’, wrote Grabrijan inPlenik and His School.15 Astounded by
the impact such changes made on the city, Grabrijan commented that Plenik
turned the city of Ljubljana from ‘a former small Austro–Hungarian town into a
capitalcity’.16Perceivingthisapproachasapoeticattempttomodifythecityscape
throughhumblechanges,withoutdramaticallyalteringit,Grabrijanwrote:
Herevealedsmallandoldjewelsofmonuments,neglectedandforgottenbyall;he
revealed old architecture and knew how to breathe new life into it. He created
architecturewithlimitedmeansandelements,andbroughttolifethingsthatwere
consideredworthless.17
11Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.88.12Originalquote: ‘Akobihotelivednosamovnovokopati,binikamorneprišli, za to jeprekratkonašeživljenjeinjetakanameratudismešna’,inGrabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.88.13AlistofGrabrijan’swritingsisincludedinthebibliography.14KreisuggeststhatPlenik’s interestinhistoricalsourcesemergedfromhisexposuretovariousinfluencesduringhis formativeyears.Healsoargues thatwhilePlenik’sclassicismwasseemingly‘reminiscent of “Antiquity”, the “Romanesque” or “Egyptian” styles’, it was in fact the result of acomplexfusionofdiversearchitecturalinfluences.Krei,Plenik,TheCompleteWorks,p.235.15Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.16Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.27.17Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.
Chapter2
43
Plenik’s interest in architectural history extended to his teachings and to
discussions with his students. In his record of the topics discussed at the school,
Grabrijan noted Plenik’s emphasis on the study of historical architecture and his
promotion of classicism as ‘the only complete style’.18 Plenik believed that
students had to start from the very beginning, and that was from antiquity.19
‘Antiquity, isnot thatbeautiful!… It issomethingdivine!’,20Plenikproclaimedas
heencouragedhisstudentstosearchforthetimelessandeverlastingelementsof
classical architecture. In a constant interrogation of the past, the class drew
obelisks, pyramids and columns in an attempt to familiarise themselves with the
grammarofclassicism.21AccordingtoPrelovšek,Plenikacquiredtheideafromthe
timeofhisapprenticeshipinOttoWagner’sofficeinthelate1890s.‘Drawprofiles,
heads, tables inchapels, takea thickpenandpractiseeverydayandeveryhour’,
Pleniksuggestedtohisstudents,and‘allofasuddenyouwillhearaboveyouthe
soundofthewingsoftheangelofeternity,thatwilltakeyouabovetheeveryday’.22
Grabrijan,likemoststudentsinhisclass,immersedhimselfinthestudyofantiquity,
presenting for his graduation work a variation on the motif of the stone vase
originallydesignedbyPlenikfortheentrancetotheParadiseGardenatHradany
castle,inPrague.23
18Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.19Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.158.20Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.21 Prelovšek and Kopa suggest that Plenik’s practical involvement and study with the OttoWagner’sschoolofarchitectureconvincedhimthatthemodernarchitectureneednotbeinventedfromnothingbutdevelopedfromavailablesources.D.Prelovšek&V.Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,DELO,Ljubljana,1992,p.42.22Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.58.23Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.158.
Chapter2
44
Importantly, forPlenik, theoverarchingpowerofclassicalarchitectural traditions
provided a context for integrating individual expression into a coherent whole. It
facilitated a connection between an historical artefact or a landscape setting, its
historical origins and architectural origins. In his search for the artistic origins of
Slovenianarchitecture,PleniksoughttoestablishadirectlinktotheEtruscans,the
ancientinhabitantsoftheApenninePeninsula.24HebelievedthatSlovenianartwas
the successor of the Mediterranean Antiquity period. Architectural historian
Damjan Prelovšek has argued that such attempts by Plenik were aimed not at
promotingspecificorregionalarchitecturalorartisticexpression,butatestablishing
aconnectiontoauniversalartistictradition,suchasclassicism.25
Certainly Grabrijan perceived his teacher’s approach as inclusive and open to
diverseartistic influences.CommentingonPlenik’sapproach,hewrote: ‘Eclectic?
He [Plenik] almost admitted it himself. Yet, not in the usual meaning of the
word.’26 Plenik’s approach, Grabrijan argued, allowed him to choose from a
treasury of historical styles and apply them in a seemingly random or eclectic
24Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.52.PlenikstudiedtheornamentationoftheVaesitula(vessel,datedattheendofthe6thcenturyBC),whichwasatthattimethoughtofasatypical Etruscan product. It represented a masterpiece of decorative art and European prehistoryand was considered the most important artefact of the Hallstattian culture in Slovenia. Also seewww.narmuzlj.si/ang/odd/arh/arhobj.html.25Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.52.26Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.
Chapter2
45
fashion.27GrabrijansawthisapproachasareflectionofPlenik’scapacitytoengage
inarchitecturaldesignfreeoftheconstraintsofarchitecturalconventions.28
Plenik’s discussions, according to Grabrijan’s record, challenged the perception
thatSloveniannationalarchitecturewasstrictlydefinedbynationalborders.While
thesearchforsuchartisticexpressiondefinedtheapproachesofmanyofPlenik’s
contemporaries in neighbouring Germanspeaking countries, Grabrijan quoted his
teacher saying, ‘a national art, in fact, does not exist’.29 According to Prelovšek,
Plenik avoided compatriot organisations and was critical of their interest in
ethnographic particularities. He had limited interest in domestic architecture and
indicatedhisdistrustinthevaluesoffolkartasaguidetoartisticcreation.30
27Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.28Asnotedinfootnote14Plenikwasexposedduringhisformativeyearstoavarietyofsources.ButforPlenik,theotherimportantconsiderationwasthattheclassicaltraditionrepresentedaccesstothedivineandtheworldlyinarchitecture.AdevoutCatholic,PlenikbelievedintheimportanceofRometoWesternculture.Plenik’sfaithinartisticendeavoursthuswasnotunlikefaithinGod–anindividualjourneyforeachpersonwiththeaimofdiscoveringthe‘truth’thatconnectsoneselfandtheeternalqualitiesofarchitecture.Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.50.29 Grabrijan, Plenik in Njegova Šola, pp. 96–97. Admittedly, Plenik’s views were deeplyconservativeandhisteachingmethodsseenasdogmatic.Inlettertohiscolleague,Grabrijanwrote‘Ido not wish Plenik’s temper on anyone, I do not wish his pessimism, even if his genius shinesthroughit’.Originalquote: ‘NežalimnikomurPlenikoveljubezni,neželimniomurnjegovevere inpesimizmainvendarobutimvthestvarehgenialnost.Vprašenjeje,alizatodejevostvsetistodrugopotrebno–potemtudinjoodklanjam!’.Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.62.Further, Plenik’s promotion of Slovenian nationalism relied on mobilising exclusivist and at timesracistviewsthattovaryingdegreeframedthefascistagenda.ButPlenik’sviewsofbothnationandart, I would argue, emerged amid the intellectual and political struggle to define the Yugoslavculture,andbyextensionhisownSlovenianculture.ResistancetosurroundingnationalismframedPlenik’s views on art and nation. While I do not intend to justify or reject the possibility ofinterpreting Plenik’s approach as racist and nationalistic by suggesting that he reacted to thepressure applied by the other nationalisms, it is important to remember that the discourse thatdefineddiscussionsofYugoslavculturewasonethatpromotedexclusivistnationalism.Itwouldbeonlyas recentas the late1990s thatMarxist cultural theoristSlavojŽižekcriticised Plenik for hiselitism.ŽižekarguedthatPlenik’sperceptionofarchitectureashighart,hisattachmenttohistoryandtherejectionofmodernism,wereallconnectedtotheideasthatstructuredfascisminEurope.ForfurtherdiscussionofthisseeS.Žižek,‘Everythingprovokesfascism’(interview)andA.Herscher,‘PlenikavecLaibach’,Assemblage33,MIT,1997,pp.58–75.30PrelovšeksuggeststhatPlenikleanedtowardsSemper’sideathatnationswereonlydistinguishedbytheircomprehensionandreproduction,whilestyleswerethecommonpropertyofthewholeof
Chapter2
46
Grabrijan credited Plenik’s ability to construct new urban realities through the
reuse of heritage remnants as part of his talent for expressing, in architectural
terms, the artistic qualities of the place, reviving the latent value of urban
landscapes.Pleniksaidtostudents:‘Youhavetofollowthepeople…youhaveto
listentothe instinctsand impulses’.31 Itwasanarchitect’s role todefinea ‘style’,
Pleniksuggested,thatexpressedapeople’s ‘innerself’andreflectedthenation’s
‘set of beliefs, mentality, and climate’.32 This idea that it is the architect’s
responsibility to find, among the diverse possibilities embedded in the urban
context, the remnants of a past that have value to the present was central to
Grabrijan’sownunderstandingofhisprofessionalandethicalroleofarchitect.
Thissearchforarelationshipbetweenarchitectureandthepeoplewhocreatedit
connectedPlenik’sthinkingtowellknowndebatesofthetime–mostspecifically
totheAustrianarthistorianAloisRiegl’swritingsandtotheconceptofKunstwollen,
orwilltoart.33WhilePlenikneveracknowledgedthesignificanceofRiegl’s ideas,
historians such as Prelovšek and Stele have argued that there is an obvious
connectionbetweenPlenik’snotionofthe ‘innernerveofart’andRiegl’s ‘will to
civilisation. Semper warned against the folk art as being too young, and as such reflects thedeformedoriginsofnationalcreativity.Plenikalsowasnot interested infolkart,anddidnot joinfellowcompatriotsintheirViennaclubVesna.Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.46.31Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,pp.96–97.32Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola.Prelovšekreferredtoitasthe‘innernerveofart’inPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.12.33M.Iversen,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1993,p.6.
Chapter2
47
art’.34 Grabrijan presented Riegl’s work as particularly relevant to the Slovene
students,dedicatingawholesectionofPlenikandHisSchooltotheimportanceof
Riegl’sideas.
Riegl’snotionofKunstwollen,35Grabrijanwrote,‘presentedworksofartasaresult
of the artistic consciousness of people, and the history of art as the discipline of
describingtheartisticwill.’36Conceivedas thehistoricalpropensityofanageora
people, the stylistic development of which was governed without respect to
mimeticortechnologicalconcerns,Kunstwollenofferedlegitimacyandstructureto
Grabrijan’sunderstandingsofPlenik’seffort.37ThisapproachconfirmedGrabrijan’s
faithintheindependentnatureofartisticagencyandtheimportanceofartisticwill
overcausalexplanationsofartisticproduction.‘Riegl’smaincontribution’,Grabrijan
wrote, ‘wasthathetaughtustodifferentiatebetweenartandcraft, liberatingart
from external purpose, which almost took it over, making art history a history of
spiritualvalues.38
34F.Stelereferredtoitasthe‘geographicconstantsofarthistory’,inPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.12.35Thetranslationofthistermisproblematicanddiffersbetweenvarioustexts.HenriZernerofferstwo interpretations: the first, articulated by Panofsky, interprets kunstwollen as ‘a content orobjective meaning – each work, by its style, involves the whole culture from which it comes’; thesecond, expressed by Sedlmayr, is that it is the ‘central and informing principle, a truly creativeforce’. Iverson defines the highly problematised concept as ‘an artistic will or urge or intentinforming different period styles’. H. Zerner, ‘Alois Riegl: art, value, and historicism’, Daedalus,Journal of theAmerican Academyof Arts and Sciences, 105, winter1976,p.180;and M. Iversen,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,p.6.36 Original quote: ‘Rieglova glavna zasluga je, da nas nauil razlikovati medumetnostjo inrokodelstvom,dajeosvobodilumetnostodzunanjegnamena,kateremujebilazeskorajpodlegla,indajenapravilizumetnostnezgodovineduhovnoznanost.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.44.37Riegl’sthesissuggeststhatthevisualexperiencesofanartistbecomeusefulandrelevantonly ifthey communicate the requirementsof the stylistic situation ofa particularhistorical moment. O.Pacht,‘Arthistoriansandartcritics–vi:AloisRiegl’,BurlingtonMagazine,105,1963,p.189.38Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.44.
Chapter2
48
Riegl’spublicationSpätrömischeKunstindustrie(1897),whichfocusedonthestudy
oflateantiquityandcouldberegardedasofarchaeologicalinterestonly,presented
new ways of thinking for people likeGrabrijan.Rejecting the common perception
thatthelateantiquityrepresentedthedecadenceanddeclineoftheclassicalage,
Riegl argued that an interrogation of this art revealed ‘new values’.39 His
proposition recognised the presence of the historical character of aesthetic
judgment and opened up possibilities for including different aesthetic ideals.
Similarly,hisworkontheBaroque,anotherperiodregardeddecadent,movedaway
from the traditionally accepted modes of analysis that focused on the individual
artistortheproblemofpatronage.Instead,itexploredworksofartasdefiningthe
‘artistic projection of that society’.40 Grabrijan saw this search for an
interrelationshipbetweenthehistoricfabricandthewillofpeopleasanunderlining
forceinPlenik’swork–hisurbantransformationofLjubljanabeinganattemptto
include the arts of small nations, such as Slovenia, within the overall historical
developmentoftheworldofarts.
Grabrijandoesnotofferanassessmentofthequalityorrelevanceoftheelements
integrated. But his continuous admiration of Plenik’s capacity to show, in his
architecture, the supposed inner qualities of the Slovenian people and city of
Ljubljanasuggesthisapproval.Hisnumerouscommentshighlighttherelevanceof
Plenik’sexcavationsoftheRomanwallremnantsinLjubljana,offeredtoprovethe
39Zerner,‘AloisRiegl:art,value,andhistoricism’,p.178.40Zerner,‘AloisRiegl:art,value,andhistoricism’,p.179.
Chapter2
49
classicalrootsofSlovenianculture.41AndhesupportedPlenik’sintegrationofthe
Illyrianmonument(1929),reinstatingthepopularviewoftheFrenchidealofliberty
underpinningSloveniancivil society [Figure2].42Thenumerousembellishmentsof
existing architecture with their connections to the selected monuments of the
Slovenian national past all told a story of what Plenik wanted Slovenia to be –a
Christianlandwithrootsintheclassicalculturesofthe‘West’.
Figure2:Illyrianmonument,J.Plenik,Ljubljana.Source:D.Ali,2004.
Plenik’s limited interest inhiscompatriotsof theYugoslavstate–theCroatsand
the Serbs – is well documented in Grabrijan’s texts. According to Grabrijan’s
records,PlenikwasclearlydissatisfiedwiththeYugoslavgovernment’sattemptsto
41Withinthesquareof theFrenchRevolution inLjubljana,Plenik includedthe Illyrianmonument(1929), the monument to the Slovenian poet Simon Gregori (1937) and the ends of the Romanwall.Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.12.42Historically,SloveniannationalismwasawakenedrelativelyearlybyNapoleonBonaparte’sforces,whichoccupiedtheregionbetween1809and1813.TherevivedancienttermIllyriawasintroducedto promote the integration of Croatian and Slovenian lands into a single administrative unit,governed by theFrench. Plenik, allegedly,wasvery interested in the ideas behind French Illyrianideals,particularlytheconnectionitestablishedbetweentheSlovenecultureandtheEtruscans.P.Rowe,CivicRealism,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1997,p.172.
Chapter2
50
dominate the Slovenes. He particularly objected to continual attempts from
BelgradetocontroltheSlovenianarchitectureprogram,andtotheintroductionof
feesforprofessionalregistration.43Mostsignificantly,despitePlenik’sattemptsto
define the grounds of a specifically Slovenian culture he was not interested in
addingthosetoanewcollectiveYugoslavculture.
Exemplifying his opposition to attempts to construct an art reflecting Yugoslav
ideologies,PlenikspokeopenlyagainstartistssuchasIvanMeštrovi.Meštrovi,a
sculptor and an architect who many have argued was one of the world’s most
famous, was a leading supporter of the idea of a new kind of Yugoslav culture.44
Meštrovi made his alliances clear in his controversial display at the Rome
Exhibition in 1911. Expected to present his work within the Austro–Hungarian
pavilion,Meštrovirefusedtodosounlessaseparatepavilionwasprovidedforthe
SouthSlavs;hisrequestwasdenied,heexhibitedhisworkintheSerbianpavilion.45
HimselfaCroat,Meštrovi’srejectionofhisperceived‘CentralEuropeanculture’for
analliancewiththeSerbs,whowereconsidered ‘barbarians’,wasasWachtelhas
suggested ‘sensational’.46 His exhibition work presented fragments from the so
called Kosovo or St. Vitrus’ Day Temple (the battle of Kosovo was fought on St.
Vitrus’ Day).47 A wooden model of the Temple combined Catholic and Orthodox
elements, with the plan following the pattern of a Roman Catholic cross and the
domehavingmoreaByzantinecharacter.Theexhibitasawholewasencircledbya
43Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.159.44Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.54.45Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55–56.46Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55.47Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55–56.
Chapter2
51
rangeoffiguresinspiredbythefamousheroesofSouthSlavoralpoetry.48Thework
ofMeštroviresonatedthroughtheterritoriesofYugoslavia,asaproposalofdeep
national significance. But commenting on the 1923 Meštrovi exhibition in
Ljubljana,Pleniksaid: ‘I respectMeštroviasanartist,but Idonot think thathe
hasreallythoughtthroughwhathisaimswere.’49
PerceivinghisartisticvisionasawarrantofSlovenianculturalintegrity,Pleniktold
hisstudents:
Iamwholeheartilyfortheunification[ofYugoslavia],butIamforeachfamilyliving
separately, so that we can, with ease, look in each other’s eyes and talk about
thingsandlearnabouteachother–itisonlythatwaythatwecandevelop.50
Encouraged, Grabrijan embarked on his lifelong project aimed at discovering and
addingtothesignificantanddiverseartisticcreationsofYugoslavia– to theever
growing artistic creations of the world. Under the influence of Riegl’s theories,
Grabrijan’sdiscussionoftheurbanconditionofBosniabegantobemarkedbythe
searchforarchitecturethatdemonstratedthesociety’sartisticexperiences,andthe
specificsof itsculturalexpression.51EncouragedbyPlenik’scredothat itwasthe
roleofanarchitect todiscovernewvalues inwhat wasalready there,Grabrijan’s
48Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55–56.49Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,pp.96–97.50Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.68.51AloisRiegl’ssearchforcorrelationsbetweensocietyandartisticcreationshadasignificantimpacton architectural discourse from the late 19th century on, from the allenveloping art of theGesamtkunstwerk, associated with the work of Wagner, to William Morris and the arts and craftmovement.
Chapter2
52
earlywritingsonthecityofSarajevosoughttoidentifythevalueshiddenwithinthe
urbanfabric.52
IdentifyingthesignificanceofBašaršija
From 1930, Grabrijan’s writings focused on the old Ottomanestablished urban
precinct of Bašaršija. By the time Grabrijan settled in the city this historic core
occupiedonlyarelativelysmallareaontheeasternedgeofthenewcity.53
Notwithstanding its size and peripheral position, the precinct’s busy shops and
pedestrian routes continued to play a significant role in the daily life of Sarajevo.
Established in the 15th century, the old precinct still maintained the original
principlesofOttomanurbandesign.Mostnotablewasthegenericdivisionbetween
public and private domains,54 the road separating the activities of thearšija, the
tradeandbusinessdistrict,fromthesurroundingresidentialarea,themahala.The
Bašaršija business section also accommodated the most important civic and
religious buildings, including the markets, Gazi Husref Beg’s Mosque (1531), the
Jewish synagogue (original building from 1581) and the Old Orthodox Church
(1539–40).55 These structures coupled with the precinct’s narrow, meandering
52 Grabrijan retained his teaching position at Sarajevo’s Technical School until the onset of WorldWarTwo.In1945hereturnedtoSloveniatoapositionasProfessorofArchitectureattheUniversityofLjubljana.53 By the early 20th century, the limits of Bašaršija had been determined geographically: on thesouthbyObalaStreet,whichseparatedBašaršijafromthenorthernresidentialhills;onthewestbyGazi Husref Beg’s Bezistan and the old Jewish Hram (synagogue), which borders a new Austro–Hungariandevelopment;andontheeastbytheVijenica(TownHall)andtheŠeherehajinbridge.54 A. Raymond, The Great Arab Cities in the 16th–18th Centuries, An Introduction, New YorkUniversityPress,NewYork,1984,p.10.55A.Bejtisuggeststhattheoriginalbuildingwasbuilt in1581,andthebuildingthatstandstodaywas built in 1821–23, in Stara Sarajevska aršijajuer, danas i sutra, Osnove I Smjernice za
Chapter2
53
streetsgaveGrabrijananimpressionthattheuniquevaluesofthecityofSarajevo
werelaidwithintheoldprecinct.
Ina1940articleentitled‘Architectureinhumanscale’,Grabrijanstatedthatdespite
thediversityofurbanexperiencesinSarajevo,hisfocusisontheold.‘Ifwelookat
Sarajevo from the surrounding hills of Trebevi, we will notice two formations:
eastern and western parts – cities next to each other.’56 Admitting that the
‘western’ part with its ‘corridorlike streets’ was not of particular interest, he
focusedonthe‘eastern’partandtheoldtownofBašaršija.Hestated:
[Theeasternpart] ismadeofsmallhousessurroundedbygardens, low inheight,
calm,humbleandtame–themonotonythatisonlyhereandthereinterruptedby
domesandminaretsofmosques,i.e.,alayeredcompositionsimilartostoneslates.
Everythingisharmoniousandhomogenous:areflectionofaresidualculture.57
Attracted to the smallscale development of the precinct and its ‘harmonious’
qualities, Grabrijan wrote, ‘My heart is leaning towards the eastern part of the
town’.Hiddeninthisfabricarethe‘secrets[that] Iwouldliketoreveal’.58Further
rationalisingthisinterestintheoldanddilapidatedcity,hewrote:
Regenaraciju (Old Town of Sarajevo, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, a Development Proposal),GradskiZavodzaZaštitu iUredjenjeSpomenikaKulture,Sarajevo,1969,p.34.BejtialsosuggeststhattheOrthodoxChristiansbuilttheirchurchin1539–40,p.31.56 Grabrijan, ‘Architecture in human scale’ (Arhitektura nadohvat covjecje ruke), Novi Behar,Sarajevo,1940,br.2,3andspecialeditionreprintedin,D.eli(ed.),GrabrijaniSarajevo,Izabranilanci1963–42,(GrabrijanandSarajevo,SelectedArticles1963–42),MuzejGradaSarajeva,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1970,p.51.57Grabrijan,‘Architectureinhumanscale’ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.51.58Originalquote:‘OvestvariimajukvalitetkojimaEuropaoskudjeva.IsprednjihseodjednomosjetibarbarinomtajsuperiorniovjeksaZapada,kojidolaziovamokaoukoloniju.Dakle,poredhaoticnoggradaživitu,negdjeismisaozaljepotuIosjeajzamjerilo!Isrceminaginjeutajdrugi, istonidiograda,Iželiobihmuotkrititajnu!Šta,jedakle,tuštoprivlai,uprkosnerješenogprometa,nehigijeneIneekonomije!PokušatcutonazvatiIizraziti:arhitekturomnadohvatovjeijeruke’;alsopublishedineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.52.
Chapter2
54
…So,whatistherethatmakesitattractiveintheunresolvedtrafficconditions,lack
ofhygieneandrentviability?Iwilltrytonameitandexplainitas:architecturein
humanscale.’59
His fascination with the precinct resulted in numerous articles published in both
professionaljournalsandthedailypapers.Theyincludedtitlessuchas‘Familysmall
house’ (1936), ‘Muslimgraveyards’ (1936), ‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’ (1936)and
the‘Turkishhouse’(1937),andintheseGrabrijanarguedthatthehistoricprecinct
was relevant to the construction of a new city. Its urban and formal qualities
remindedhimofnotonlyofhisdaysatPlenik’sschool,butalsoofhis interest in
modern debates, such as Le Corbusier’s discussion of the Orient. These themes
underpinnedGrabrijan’swritingsonthecity.
Historicyes,butnotsignificant:theproblemsofIslamicheritage
In the article ‘Muslim graveyards’ Grabrijan addressed the pertinent issue of the
destructionof Islamicbuiltheritage inSarajevo.60The ‘exhumation’ofoldMuslim
graveyardsstartedwiththeAustro–Hungariangovernmentinthe1880s,initiallyas
partofexpandingcityboundariesandtransformingthelandonceontheperiphery.
Thepracticealso formedapartof thegovernment’sendeavour tomodernise the
cityandtoturnoldgraveyardsintonewparks.Inanattempttoparticipateinthose
59eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.52.60ExhumationofoldMuslimgraveyardswasstartedbytheAustro–Hungarians,whotookouttwosignificantgraveyardsinthesouthwestcornerofthePresidentialPalace.Oppositethepalace,inthepositionof today’sSmallPark,anoldMuslimgraveyardwas turned intoapark in1886,andafterWorldWarTwonewbuildingswerebuiltonthesite.Themaincitypark,knownastheBigPark,wasalso originally a Muslim graveyard. During the Turkish time AtMejdan, later renamed SijasetMejdan, was used as an execution ground. Nijazija Koštovi presents an extensive record ofexhumed Muslim graveyards, but Koštovi’s inconsistent referencing system makes this studydifficulttouse.N.Koštovi,Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZla,(SarajevoBetweentheCharitableandEvil),ElKalemandMerhamet,Sarajevo,1995,pp.186–99.
Chapter2
55
changes and find new revenue, the directorate of vakufs (Islamic pious
endowments) – the legal owner of the all the vakuf properties – apparently
‘willinglyhandedover’twolargegraveyardsin1885totransformintosuchparks.61
In return, the government promised to keep the gravestones and pay the vakuf
directorate yearly rent.62 New parks, roads and paths were cut through old
graveyardsandmosquegardens,andwhenGrabrijanaddressedthe issue in1936
theprocesswasinfullswing.
Acceptingmodernisationasthepremiseonwhichthepolicyofgraveyardsclearing
wasbased,Grabrijan’s textaddressedthe issueof integratingtheoldgravestones
(the historic remnant) in the new setting. He perceived modernisation as a
progressive socioeconomic force and suggested that the graveyards could be
turned into the ‘lungsof thenewcity.’63Naivelycalling fora full incorporationof
the past’s remnants into new landscape, Grabrijan wrote, ‘bring park into the
graveyard,graves intothecitycentre,andhistory intomodern life!’64Unawareof
thecomplexityofthedebate,hefocusedontheimportanceofcontextualisingthe
oldrelictsintothenewlandscape.‘Sarajevo’shistory’,hewrote,‘iswrittenonthese
tombs’.65AdjustingRiegl’sthesistothespecificsoflocaldebate,hestatedthatthe
tombs communicated the stylistic requirements of a particular historical moment
61 T. Kruševac, Sarajevo pod AustroUgarskom upravom 1878–1918, (Sarajevo Under the AustroHungarianAdministration18781918),IzdanjeMuzejagradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1960,p.4762Kruševac,SarajevopodAustroUgarskomupravom1878–1918,p.4763eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.64 Original quote: ‘Dakle: park u groblje, grobove usred grada, historiju u moderan život.’ ‘Muslimgraveyards’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.65Originalquote:‘AliSarajevoimahistorijupisanunanišanima,tj.historijunarodakojijebivjerskiprepotentan,pajeonda,kadsenijesmioiživljavatiubogumilstvu,prešaoodmahnaislam.’‘Muslimgraveyards’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.107.
Chapter2
56
andwererelevanttothecontemporarycity.66Inanattempttofindsupportforhis
argument,Grabrijanrecalledaneventwheninanattempttodiverttheauthorities
from clearing an old graveyard Plenik proposed a public park. The design
incorporated importanthistoricmonuments inspatialandsymbolicconfigurations
thatGrabrijanstatedwasevocativeof‘SlovenianPantheon’.67
Butunlike inLjubljana,whereurbanauthoritiessupportedPlenik inhiseffortsto
include remnants of the past in his new urban plans, in Sarajevo the Ottoman
heritagewasunderconsiderableattack.TheexhumationofoldOttomangraveyards
was accompanied by outright demolition or passive neglect and destruction of
historic buildings. This saw the mosque of Mustafa Beg Skenderpaši (the first
domedmosque inthewholeofBosniaandHerzegovina,built in1518)collapse in
1935 after an underfunded roofreplacement project left the structure uncovered
and open to weather.68 A number of local mosques and religious schools were
demolished, including the Hadži Idris Mesdžid (1540), the Mesdžid Tavil Hadži
Mustafa(1545),theMesdžidHadžiMahmudBaliSahtijandži(builtbefore1602)and
theMejdanmedresa(1741).69
It isclear thatGrabrijansawheritageconservationasasignificantproblem. Inhis
1936paper, ‘ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo’,published
66Pacht,‘Arthistoriansandartcritics–vi:AloisRiegl’,p.189.67 While Grabrijan does not mention the specific project, the reference was most likely made inrelationtoPlenik’sdesignofLjubljanacemeteryatŽaleproject.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.68 The whole structure disintegrated, leaving only the minaret standing. The minaret wassubsequentlydestroyedin1960.Koštovi,Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZla,p.170.69Koštovi,Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZla,pp.174–76.
Chapter2
57
six years after his arrival in the city, Grabrijan expressed his frustration with
approaches to urban development.70 Discussing zoning, traffic and hygiene in
relation to theurbanplanningofSarajevo,Grabrijanaccusedthecityauthorityof
losing ‘itshead’byallowing the ‘barbarityofmodernisation’ todestroy theurban
qualitiesofthecity.71Inanumberofarticlespublishedin1936and1937Grabrijan
continuedhiscriticismofbroaderurbanplanningapproachesandspecificheritage
policies forBašaršija.72However,hisvoice remaineda loneoneandhis requests
went unheard. His outspokenness was seen as a reflection of his nonBosnian
backgroundandlackofinvolvementandawareness,ormaybeappreciation,ofthe
specific historical and political factors that framed discussion of Sarajevo’s built
heritage.
To understand the context within which Grabrijan’s articles appeared and the
resistance they faced, it is necessary to outline two broader issues framing the
discussion of Bašaršija: first, the Ottoman origins that underlined the internal
70Grabrijan‘Sarajevoseizgradjuje,NekolikopolemikihmisliourbanizacijiSarajeva’(ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo),originallypublishedinJugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,11.4.1936;republishedineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.101–05.71eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.101–05.72 In the years 1936–37 Grabrijan published more than 20 papers. Among those that specificallyaddressed the problematic issues of urban development were: ‘Sarajevo se izgradjujeNekolikopolemikih misli o urbanizaciji Sarajeva’(Sarajevo is getting built, some thoughts on the urbandevelopment of Sarajevo), Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, 11. 4, 1936; ‘Porodina mala kua’ (Smallfamily home), Tehniar, br. 7, Beograd, April 1936; ‘Muslimanska groblja’, (Muslim graveyards),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,14.6,1936;andNoviBehar,Sarajevo,1937,br.5–6,god.XI;‘Željeznikiproblem,Oastronomskimsumama’, (Aproblemofthe[Sarajevo]railwaystation,aboutexuberantprices),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,24.6,1936;‘Sarajevskiželjeznikiproblem,konkretnipredlog’,(AproblemoftheSarajevorailwaystation,aproposal),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,1.7,1936;‘OsvrtnaarhitektonskuizložbuJurajaNeidhardtanaTehnikomfakultetuuZagrebuGradjevnaidejaGI’,(Areview of architectural exhibition of Juraj Neidhardt at Technical Faculty in Zagreb), GradjevinskiVjesnik,Zagreb,br.1,January1937;‘Arhitektonskiproblemimodernogteatra,OrijentacijaprilikomSarajevskeadaptacije’,(Architecturalproblemsofmoderntheatre,acasestudyofSarajevotheatre),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,6.1.1937.
Chapter2
58
structure of the precinct and the precinct’s subsequent changes under the new
Austro–Hungariangovernment,whichtookoverBosniain1878;second,theimpact
those urban changes had on geographical and contextual relationship between
Bašaršijaandtherestofthecity.
TheoriginsandtransformationsofBašaršija,fromthetowncentretothehistoricprecinct
The origins of the city of Sarajevo are connected to what later became the
Bašaršijaprecinct.73Inthemid15thcenturytheIsabegIshakovi,firstgovernorof
the newly acquired Ottoman province of Bosnia, built his administrative
headquarters, or saray, from which Sarajevo took its name (saray = military
camp/palace;ovasi=field).74
73HistorianBehijaZlataroffersadetaileddiscussionofthedevelopmentofSarajevofromitsoriginstill the end of 16th century. Zlatar identifies a small town located around the medieval marketsquare Trgovište, or Utorkovište, located where Ali Pasha’smosque and theHygienic Institute aretoday.MostmentionedlocalitiesareintheareathattheIsaBegvakufdocuments(vakufnama)refertoasStaraVaroš(OldTown),dated1468.OldTrgovište(OldMarketplace)isfromthedocumentsof1569,VarošišteorVrhbosnaasitisreferredtoinsomedocuments.Vrhbosnaisalsothenameofthemediaevaltownonthatplace.In1451,theOttomanstookoverthetownofVrhbosna,whichgrewintothemajorOttomancityofBosnia–thecityofSarajevo–andlaunchedaseriesoffurtherattacksthat resulted in the whole mediaeval kingdom falling into Ottoman’s hands. Isa Beg Ishakovi issometimesspelledasIsakovi,and‘beg’isaBosnianspellingofthetitlebeyor‘chieftain.’Heretheformer spelling is used, as it is by B. Zlatar in Zlatno doba Sarajeva (Golden Age of Sarajevo),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1996,pp.28–37.74AccordingtoZlatar,1463marksthetakeoveroftheBosnianterritoriesbytheOttomans.Thatyearthe territory of Bosnia became a sandžak (commonly translated as ‘province’), with the newlyestablished city of Sarajevo as its centre. Zlatar, Zlatno doba Sarajeva, p. 34. Also, from theestablishment of Ottoman power until 1580, Bosnia formed a part of the eyâlet (governorategeneral) of Rumelia which comprised a number of sandžaks and covered most of the Balkans.SarajevowasthefirstcentreofBosniansandžakandlateronpašaluk(Ottomanadministrativeunit).TheeyeletofBosniawascreatedwhich includedthewholeofmodernBosniaandHercegovinaaswell as some parts of neighbouring Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia and Serbia. Traditionally theprovinces of the Ottoman Empire were known as eyâlets. From 1864 they were graduallyrestructuredassmallervilâyets,vilajetinBosnian.N.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,Macmillan,London,1994,p.50.
Chapter2
59
Having initially established the governor’s palace and Sarajevo’s first mosque, on
the left bank, Isa Beg built a bridge across the Miljacka River, connecting his
development with the existing intersection of roads that would become the new
commercialcentre.75Onthatleftbankheestablishedatekija(zawiya–thelodgeof
a dervish order) to serve as ‘a place of rest for poor Muslims that are students,
sejjidi[descendantsoftheProphet],warriorsandtravellers’.76Ontherightbankhe
commissioned a karavansaraj (caravansaray, inn for travellers and merchants),
withadjoiningshopsandworkshops,adevelopmentthatformedthenucleusofthe
futuregrandbazaarthatwouldbecalledBašaršija.77
Between1521and1541,underthegovernorshipofGaziHusrefBeg,Bašaršijaand
the surrounds entered a period of major development.78 The increase of urban
activitiesmarkedthebeginningofthe‘goldenperiod’ofthecityandadvancedthe
75InadditiontotheexistingmedievaltownofVrhbosna,theplacethatIsaBegselectedtobuildthenewtownwasclosetoanothermediaevalsettlement–Brodac.There,IsaBegappropriatedlandandinexchangegavethelocalChristianpopulationnewfieldsfurtheraway.However,thefirstbuildingactivities took place before 1462. The transformation was marked by the town’s classification tokasaba,aplacethathasamosquewhereFridayprayersareperforms,acommunityofMuslimsandamarketplace.Zlatar,ZlatnodobaSarajeva,pp.28–30.76IsaBegdesignatedvakufpropertytosecuretheworkingoftekija.Thestructuresthatprovidedthemaintenanceandsupportforhisvakufincludedhamam(baths),watersupply,millsandland.Zlatar,ZlatnoDobaSarajeva,pp.31–33.77 The term Bašaršija is derived from Turkish language as ‘Baš’ is related to ‘ba ’ that in Turkishmeans ‘main’, ‘capital’ and ‘aršija’which is ‘çar ’ that inTurkishmeans ‘bazaar’or ‘market’.Thetermaršijaonlyisalsocommonlyused.78Therehavebeentwospellingsusedforhisname:GaziHusrefBegandGaziHusrevbeg.Heretheformerisused.GaziHusrefBegcameasagovernoroftheBosniansandžakin1521,wherehestayeduntil1541,withtwosmall interruptions.A.Handži,StudijeoBosni,historijskiprilozi izosmanskoturskogperiod,(AStudyofBosniaDuringtheOttomanTurkishPeriod),ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture(IRCICA), Istanbul,1994,p.79.ForadiscussionofGaziHusrefBegandhisendowments see also: Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf (comp.), Spomenica Gazi Husrevbegove etiristoGodišnjice(FourHundredYearsofGazihusrevbeg’sVakuf)Sarajevo,1932,inparticularthesectionbyH.Kreševljakovi,‘SarajevodoHusrefbega’,pp.3–17.
Chapter2
60
status of Sarajevo from kasaba (small town) to a šeher (town).79 In 1531, Gazi
HusrefBegcommissionedtheconstructionofSarajevo’smostprominentmosquein
Bašaršija–theBeg’s(Begova)mosque,withassociatedstructuresthatincludeda
šadrvan(waterfountain),twoturbes(burialchambers)andakutubhana(library).80
Tothewestofthemosquehebuiltanimaret(kitchenforthepoor),amusafirhana
(inn forpoorpeople),andtothenorthof itamekteb (elementary Islamicschool)
andahanikah(hostelwithaschoolforyoungdervishes).81Inthesameyear,healso
began construction of commercial buildings, such as a karavansaraj (inn for
travellersandmerchants).
ThefollowingdecadewitnessedBašaršija’ssteadydevelopmentintoacommercial
centre, with commissions such as Gazi Husref Beg’sbezistan (covered bazaar for
valuable goods) and tašlihan (small inn) in 1540.82 The commercial growth of
Bašaršija continued throughout the second half of the 16th century. The most
significantcommercialstructurebuilt inthisperiodwastheBrusaBezistan[Figure
79Handžisuggeststhatmostofthesultan’smosques inBosniawere, infact,statesponsoredandnotestablishedunderthevakufoftheSultan.ThatsuggeststhatthefirstmosquesinvarioustownscanbeseenasmoreaplannedactionoftheOttomangovernmentandlesstheresultofindividualundertakings through the institution of vakuf. A. Handži, Studije o Bosni, historijski prilozi izosmanskoturskogperioda.80 The document compiled by the Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf,SpomenicaGaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice, contains detailed description of the vakuf and the buildings and structure that itencompassed.81Thehanikahburnedtwice, in1697and1755,andwasrenovatedthreetimes in1769,1831and1852. In 1931, it was replaced by a new medresa. Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf, Spomenica GaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice,p.57.Thedervisheswereofthehalvetijaorder.82Tašlihan(stonehan,Husrevbeg'scaravanseraioroldhan)wasbuiltbetween1540and1543.Thestructurecaughtfirein1697,andthenagainin1831,beforeburneddowncompletelyin1879.
Chapter2
61
3], a covered marketplace constructed by Rustem Pasha in 1551 to facilitate the
importationofsilkfromTurkey.83
Figure3:ContemporaryviewoftheexteriorofthecoveredmarketplaceofBrusaBezistan.Source:DijanaAli,2004.
InaccordancewiththeOttomanpractice,theinstitutionofthevakufunderpinned
urban development. The vakuf was a religious trust fund, with its own separate
administration and legal identity.84 Its finance was reliant on a permanent
endowment of land or real estate made by an individual stipulating that the
propertybeusedforpurposescompatiblewithIslam.85Thus,thedonatedproperty
andfinancewereprimarilyusedforprovidingpublicinstitutions,suchasmosques,
83ForathoroughdescriptionofBašaršija’sdevelopmentinthe16thcenturyseeZlatar,ZlatnoDobaSarajeva.84For furtherdiscussionofvakufs in formerYugoslaviaseeM.Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH, (Legislative Regulations for Cultural and Historic Heritage in Bosnia andHerzegovina,Origins,Protection,Destruction),MedjunarodniCentarzaMir,Sarajevo,1997,pp.17–22.85ThespellingofthetermvakufisBosnian.TheauthorisawareofthederivationfromtheTurkishvakifandArabicwaqf,buttomaintainaccuracyinreferencingoriginaldocuments,alltermsinthisthesisarespelledinBosnian.
Chapter2
62
schools, libraries, hostels, hospitals, public fountains, kitchens and sometimes
bridgesandroads.Thesystemalsoprovidedforincomeproducingproperties,such
as farmlands, toll bridges, inns, bathhouses, shops and warehouses. Funds raised
through these institutions allowed for the perpetual operation and restoration of
thevakuf’sproperties.
InthecontextofBašaršija,thevakuf’sdetailsofGaziHusrefBeg’sendowmentfor
buildingandmaintainingstructuresweresetoutinthreeadministrativedocuments
calledvakfija(endowmentdeed).86Thefirstofthese,dated1531(938accordingto
Islamic calendar), documented the establishment of the main mosque, hanikah,
mekteb, imaret and musafirhana. The second, from 1537, was related to the
medresa, and the third,dated thesameyear,presented theestablishmentof the
main mosque in more detail.87 The vakuf’s funds were used to support the main
buildings, as well as other public structures, such as sahatkula (the clock tower),
fourhans,andvakufhospital,tonamethemostsignificant.88Further,inhisdesire
todevelopBašaršijaintoanactivemarketplace,GaziHusrefBegprovidedloansto
merchants interested in building markets andstores within the boundaries of the
precinct.
Despite Bašaršija’s Ottoman urban structure and the prominence of Islamic
educational and religious institutions, the precinct also accommodated other
86Thevakfijadocuments includedmovableandfixedassets,andsetuptherelationshipsbetweentheeconomicandurbanaspectsofspecificvakufestablishments.Gazihusrevbeg’sVakuf,SpomenicaGaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice.87Gazihusrevbeg’sVakuf,SpomenicaGaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice,pp.91–92.88Handži,StudijeoBosni,historijskipriloziizosmanskoturskogperioda,VIII.
Chapter2
63
religiousgroups,whichweregrantedadegreeofsocialandcivicautonomyunder
the millet system.89 Millets were selfgoverning religious communities under the
Ottomangovernment,grantingrightstoChristiansandJewstoapplytheirownlaws
in their own courts, albeit under certain restrictions. The system thus recognised
theBosnianpopulationthroughitsreligions(Muslims,Catholics,andOrthodox)and
not itsnationalbelonging–Bosnians,CroatsandSerbs.BecauseIslamformedthe
backbone of the Ottoman state, the religious separations hindered integration of
thevarioussegmentsoftheempire’spopulationintoauniformgroup.
The millet structure affected the urban layout of the city, as religious groups
occupied separate parts of the same precinct.90 In the 16th century, the Catholic
merchantsfromDubrovnik(Ragusa),forexample,builtachurchwithintheirdistrict
of Latinluk, or Franaka mahala, while the Orthodox population settled near the
northern boundary of Bašaršija, where they established their church, with its
surrounding residential and commercial dwellings, in 1539.91 Later in the century,
Bašaršija saw the arrival of the Sephardic Jews, following their expulsion from
Spain.TheyestablishedacommunityinSarajevoandbuilttheirfirstsynagogue,in
1581, at the western end of the precinct. Over the following two centuries
Bašaršijaretaineditsurbanstructure,asdeterminedbytheprominentbuildingsof
GaziHusrefBeg’svakufandtheperipheraldevelopmentofvariousethnicquarters.
So by the beginning of the 17th century one could view the presence and
89Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.49.90HandžiprovidesmoreinformationonmilletsinBosniainStudijeoBosni;seealso,R.Donia&J.Fine,BosniaandHercegovina–ATraditionBetrayed,HurstandCompany,London,1994,pp.64–65.91TheoriginalRomanCatholicchurchinLatinluk,datingfromtheMiddleAges,wasdestroyedinthefireof1697.
Chapter2
64
interactionofBosnia’sfourreligiouscommunitieswithintheonesquarekilometre
ofBašaršija.
Sarajevo was a taxfree city, which furthered Bašaršija’s economic development.
The Muafnama, a document providing the city with exemptions from taxes, was
initiallygiventoSarajevoin1464inappreciationforthecity’smilitarycontribution.
This privilege remained a characteristic of Sarajevo until the late 18th century.92
Clearly, this economic climate provided a financial advantage to merchants and
artisans, whose gravitation to Bašaršija further confirmed this urban core as the
commercialcentreofthecity.Bosnia’sgrowing importanceasastrongholdofthe
OttomanEmpirecontributedtoachangeofstatus in1580 intoaprincipalunitof
the empire. It enjoyed its special status for the remaining period of Ottoman
governanceandthe1878takeoverbytheAustro–HungarianEmpire[Figure4].93
92MuafnamawasfirstgiventoSarajevobysultanMehmedelFatih,andthesameMuafnamawasrenewed at least four more times, in 1572, 1692–93, 1701 and 1748. Serdarevi, Pravna zaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,pp.16–17.93 From the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire started experiencing significant problems inBosnia.InternalpressuresandrebelliousnesswithinBosniaaccompaniedtheendofNapoleonicwarsandtheSerbianrebellion. In1877,RussiadeclaredwarontheOttomans,andby1878Russiawasabletodictatethetermsofsettlementwiththeempire.UndertheTreatyofSanStefano,BosniawastoremainOttomanterritory,butvariousreformshadtobe introduced.However, theCongressofBerlin in 1878 (Treaty of Berlin) changed those arrangements and announced that Bosnia andHercegovina,whilestillofficiallyunderOttomansuzerainty,wouldbeoccupiedandadministeredbyAustria–Hungary.Foradiscussiononthisperiodsee‘Resistanceandreform’inMalcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.119–35.
Chapter2
Figure 4: aršija with its surroundings at the end of 19thcentury, Neidhardt’s map developed on the base of late19th century Austro Hungarian map. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.59.
TheinterwovennatureofthecentralmarketandthemainmosqueofGaziHusref
Beg contributed to the development of a complex and active civic centre. More
significantly, this urban model served political purposes, as it allowed for the
articulation of an authoritative Ottoman imperial image. In the first instance, the
reliance on the vakuf and the large financial investments in religious buildings
emphasisedIslamandIslamic lawasthebasisofcommunity,culturalandpolitical
life, thereby strengthening the Ottoman presence in Sarajevo. Further, the city
centre’s concentrated network of economic activity symbolised the Ottoman
commercialinterestintheregion.GiventheperipheralpositionofSarajevoonthe
western boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, the official tax exemption secured
Sarajevo’seconomicgrowthandrepresentedaneconomicallypowerfulempire to
theneighbouringwesternstates.
Chapter2
66
InthefollowingtwocenturiesBašaršijaretaineditsurbanstructureofprominent
buildings of the Gazi Husref Beg’s vakuf, with peripheral development of various
ethnicquarters.Thisperiodofmoderateandconservativegrowth,however,came
toanabruptendastheAustro–HungarianEmpireassumedadministrativechargeof
Bosnia in 1878 and annexed this region in 1908. The new government’s focus on
infrastructureandurbanrenewal,gaverisetoaperiodofdevelopmentandgrowth
inSarajevo.94
TheAustro–Hungariantransformations:fromtowncentretohistoricprecinct
TheTreatyofBerlingavetheAustro–Hungariangovernmentadministrativecontrol
ofBosniain1878.Thenewgovernmentbeganalmostimmediatelytoupgradethe
existing city, as well as develop the new city to the west of the old precinct. The
new city’s placement responded to restrictive topography, defined by the
surrounding mountains and the narrow valley of the riverMiljacka. The new city
thereforemovedawayfromtheoldprecinct.ThepretextfortheAustro–Hungarian
takeoverbeingpremisedonOttomanincapacitytoadministertheregion,thenew
government immediately focused on introducing an administrative and urban
structure. Authorities began numbering the houses, straightening and regulating
the streets, building containing walls for the river Miljacka and adding a series of
94Bytheearly20thcentury,thelimitsofSarajevo’sBašaršijahadbeendeterminedgeographically:onthesouthbyObalaStreet,whichrunsparalleltotheriverMiljackatothesouth;onthenorthbyPetarKoi/MarshalTitoStreet,which separates theBašaršija fromthenorthern residentialhills;onthewestbyGaziHusrefBeg’sBezistanandtheoldJewishHram(synagogue),whichborderswitha new Austro–Hungarian development; and on the east by the Vijenica and Šeher ehajin. Analternative term aršija (markets) is also commonly used in reference to the same precinct. Bothtermscouldbeinclusiveofthesurroundingresidentialareasofmahalas.
Chapter2
67
newbridgesandcivicbuildings.Thisfocusoninfrastructureandurbanrenewalgave
risetothedevelopmentandgrowthofthenewcity,tothewestofBašaršija.95
Frequent fires that started easily in the densely populated Bašaršija area
threatenednotonly thehistoricmonumentsbut thesurrounding fabricaswell.A
suddenfirethatdestroyedsignificantpartsofBašaršija in1879,onlyayearafter
theAustriansarrived,provideda legitimateexcuseforgovernmenttoaddressthe
‘problem’ofBašaršijaandtestitsnewregulatorypolicies.96Inthe1880s,abuilding
codeforSarajevostipulatedthatnewbuildingscouldbebuiltintheBašaršijaarea
and that existing buildings could be adapted only with governmental permission,
thus putting all new development under strict governmental control.97 The
measureswereintroducednotsomuchtoprotectthetraditionalenvironmentasto
provideaspacefortheselectiveconservationandcontrolofthecity’sgrowthand
development.Aseparatesectionofthebuildingcodeintroducedthewideningand
95 For a discussion of the AustroHungarian administration ofSarajevo see Kruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskom upravom 1878–1918; and H. Kreševljakovi, Sarajevo za vrijeme Austrougarskeuprave (1878–1918), (Sarajevo During the AustroHungarian Government), Izdanje Arhiva GradaSarajeva,Sarajevo1969,pp.23–27.96The first threebooksof regulationsanddirectives (1878–1880)werepublished inVienna in theGermanlanguage,withmoreinstructionalratherthannormativecharacter.InthefirstinstancetheAustro–Hungarian government relied on the existing Turkish ‘buildings and roads regulations’(originallypublished1863)foritsownneeds.Thischangedfrom1881,whenthegovernmentstartedprinting its publications in both German and SerboCroatian and sometimes the SerboCroatianversioninbothscripts(LatinandCyrillic).Kruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskomupravom1878–1918,pp.36–37.97AtthebeginningthenewauthoritiesacceptedandrespectedTurkishlaws.Butby1880thenewbuildingcode(Graevnired)hadalreadybeenintroduced,stipulatingbuildingheightsandrequiringsubmission of drawings as a part of the building approval process. M. Serdarevi, Pravna zaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.27alsoinKruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskomupravom1878–1918,p.37.
Chapter2
68
straightening of streets, the opening of new squares and streets and a new
regulation(expropriation)andzoningoftheland.98
A process that initially aimed at making the area safe saw Bašaršija gradually
changefromthecentreofcitylifetoadesignatedhistoricalprecinct.Thenew1893
‘Building code regulations for the capital city of Sarajevo’ (Graevni pravilnik za
Zemaljski glavni grad Sarajevo) defined the business sector of Bašaršija as a
separate zone, with specific building regulations.99 The code allowed building in
timber, but limited the building height to basement and two storeys. Building a
third storey depended on providing appropriate ‘health, air and light access’ and
proving noninterference with the ‘picturesque appearance’ of the surrounding
buildings.100BuildingintheproximityoftheGaziHusrefBeg’smosquewasheavily
regulatedtopreservethe‘character’oftheprecinct.101
Ultimately,theconservationpolicyarticulatedinthe‘buildingcoderegulationsfor
thecapitalcityof Sarajevo’ favoured theconservationof the ‘significantheritage’
only.102Althoughthisledtoprojectssuchastherepaintingoftheornamentsinthe
BegMosquein1885,andthereconstructionoftheŠeherehajinbridgein1902,it
98Kruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskomupravom1878–1918,p.37.99 Serdarevi suggests thisdocument was the first legal act that regulated the building industry inSarajevo.Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.29.100Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.29101BrankaDimitrijevirefersto‘BosnischePost’of12May1903,whichoutlinestheattemptbytheAustro–Hungarians to regulate building in the area of Bašaršija. B. Dimitrijevi, Prilozi o zaštitigraditeljskog nasljedja u Bosni I Hercegovini I valorizaciji Bašaršije u Sarajevu u AustroUgarskomperiodu(1878–1918),Sarajevo,September1988,unpublishedpaperpresentedataconferenceonthedevelopmentofBašaršija.102Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.27.
Chapter2
69
overlookedtheneedtomaintainsmallscalestructures.103Thefocusonsignificant
structures isolated and privileged monuments and historic buildings above the
overallcontextoftheprecinct.104 Withtheauthorities’growingrecognitionofthe
importanceofhistoricpreservation,questionsofwhethertheprecinctwastobea
historic section or a growing and living part of the city began to enter urban
debates.
AgroupofBašaršijaresidentsappealedfortheirrighttobuildcommerciallyviable
buildings on their land, and asked the authorities to clarify what was meant by
regulationssuchas‘keepingthecharacterofaršija’.Theywroteinaletter‘that[if
that meant] aršija character is expressed through the timber shutters where
differentshopownerspresenttheirgoods’,then,theyargued:
… we think, that keeping these aesthetic qualities will be almost impossible,
becausenoonecanbeforcedtobuilttimbershutterstoday,sowheneverthenew
building is built in the aršija area, even if it is a groundstorey building it will
inevitably have the qualities of the modern shop, which will have nothing
characteristicinitsappearance’.105
Theconcernedgroupfurtherappealedtothegovernmenttoprotectthe‘interestof
thepoorpeople’,ratherthan‘antiquarian’efforts.Toregulatetokeepthewooden
shutters(efenek),theysaid,‘itwasobviousthatthepeoplewhomadethisdecision
103 The introduction in 1892 of the ‘Order of the Government for Bosnia and Herzegovina of theprotection of monuments, the handling of heritage items and other historically and culturallysignificantstructures’(‘NaredbaZemaljskeVladezaBosnuIHercegovinuod27.6.1892br50.243/1ouvanju historikih spomenika, zatim postupku sa starinama i drugim u historikom I kulutrnohistorikom pogledu znamenitih objekata) specifically defined the heritage protection procedures.Serdarevi, Pravna zaštita kulturnohistorijskog naslijedja BiH, pp. 26–27. Discussion of thisdocument and its significance is presented in Dimitrijevi, Prilozi o zaštiti graditeljskog nasljedja uBosniIHercegovini.104Kostovi,Sarajevoizmedjudobrotvorstvaizla,pp.114–15.105Dimitrijevi,PriloziozaštitigraditeljskognasljedjauBosniIHercegovini.
Chapter2
70
hadnopropertyinBašaršija“butwereledbytheirfantasies”’.106Throughoutthe
20th century, the request to the government to devise and make public its
approachtoheritagepreservationunderpinnedtheurbandebatesofSarajevo.
Inadditiontotheregulationsthatconcernedthebuiltfabric,thenewgovernment
introduced a series of measures that restructured the economic structure of the
vakuf, the institutionsupporting thedevelopmentof theprecinct. Primarily itwas
the vakuf’s amalgamation of religious beliefs with social and urban practices that
prompted the Austro–Hungarian government to take control of the institution’s
dealings,anditrequestedmoreadministrativeproceduresandtransparencyinthe
institution’s accounting processes. To implement the new structures the
governmentestablished,in1883,theVakufCommission,andnominatedthesenior
Muslim membership. The commission replaced the local family administration of
vakuf with a centrally controlled administration that required proper budget and
accountability.107
Further,toallowafreemarketofland,in1912theZemaljskaVladaofBiH(thelocal
governmentalbodyundertheAustro–Hungarians)changedlandregulation,sothat
the holder of the land became its owner and vakuf the collector of taxes –
effectivelyreplacingthe1886documentthatregulatedandpreventedthesellingof
106Dimitrijevi,PriloziozaštitigraditeljskognasljedjauBosniIHercegovini.107 By the institutional laws ofvakuf, once a property is a part of avakuf it could never revert toordinaryownership.AtthetimeoftheAustro–Hungarianannexationin1878itwasestimatedthatnearlyonethirdofalluseablelandinBosniawasownedbyvakuf.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.146.
Chapter2
71
the government land (mirija land).108 As the landholders became the owners, the
institutionofvakuflostmuchofitsproperty,andthechangeinstructuremadethe
institution more open to corruption.109 The next big loss of vakuf land occurred
after the World War One, when much of the land was included in agrarian
reforms.110
WhilemostoftheconstructionundertheAustro–Hungariansremainedtothewest
of Bašaršija, new structures within the precinct as well as the Austro–Hungarian
conservationapproachtowardstheOttomancentrealtereditsreadingsignificantly.
The most monumental marker of the new government’s urban vision for the
precinct was the city’s town hall, or Vijenica, which was designed and built
between1891and1895,openingin1896[Figure5].Positionedattheeasternend
of the Bašaršija, on the banks of the river Miljacka, it marked the edge of the
Ottoman market precinct, as well as the outer edge of the dense urban
developmentoftheoldcitycenter.111Thebuilding’simposingheight–almosttwice
108 Inprinciplevakufwasestablishedonthe ‘real’property fullyownedbythepersonestablishingthevakuf(evkafivakuf).Landtitlesweredividedinfivegroups:private–mulk;governmentowned–mirije; religious endowment/vakuf – mevkufe; common use – metruke; and nonusable land –nesvak.Whileitwascommontoendowthegovernmentownedland,permission(temliknama)wasneededinanytransactions.Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.18.109Forexample,thebuildingofBrusaBezistan,originallyestablishedunderthevakufofRustempaša,ended up being recorded as the private property of several individuals Serdarevi,Pravna zaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.22.110Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.22.111Amongothersignificantexamplesofbuildingsdesigned in ‘pseudoMoorish’ styleare: thehighschool(1885)architectH.Niemeczak;Muslimcommunityreadingroom(1888),vakuf’sbuildingat8Zrinjskogstreet(1889)andthebuildingof IsaBeg’sbath(1890),alldesignedbyJ.Vancaš;andtheSheriatSchoolofLaw(1887)byK.Paržik.
Chapter2
72
that of the neighbouring Ottoman structures – stated the AustroHungarian
administration’sgreatersignificancethanthepreviousOttomanrulers.112
Figure 5: Contemporary view of Vijenica. Source: DijanaAli,2004.
The first pseudoMoorishstyle building in Sarajevo was the Ruždija High School,
builtin1885,andalmosteachyearforthenextfiveyearsabuildingofthisstylewas
erected in old Ottoman Sarajevo.113 With every new structure that appeared, the
visualandarchitecturalcoherenceoftheprecinctwasfurtherundermined[Figure
6]. The advent of World War One saw the collapse of the Austro–Hungarian
government,whichushered inaperiodofconflictandregional instability.114With
diverted funds from conservation and development, a period of architectural
112ForfurtherdiscussionseeD.Ali,‘Ascribingsignificancetositesofmemory,theSarajevo’stownhall’,inP.Somma(ed.),AtWarwiththeCity,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.113ForadiscussionofotherstructuresbuiltbytheAustro–HungariansinthisperiodseeD.Ali&C.Bertram,‘Sarajevo:amovingtarget’,Centropa,JournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.2,no.3,September2002,pp.164–76.114In1918,Austro–HungarianrulewasformallydenouncedandtheKingdomofSlovenes,CroatsandSerbswasformed.ThiswasrenamedtheKingdomofYugoslaviain1929.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.166–74.
Chapter2
73
stagnationandurbandeteriorationsetin.TheCatholicCathedralandtheOrthodox
Church were built in the new city centre, and Bašaršija was no longer a viable
religiousandadministrativecitycentrebutanoldandhistoricpartofthetown.
Figure 6: Contemporary view of Bašaršija square withsebilj.Source:DijanaAli,2004.
Bosnia’s ethnoreligious stratification became one of its central political issues,
particularly exploited in the growing nationalisms of the Bosnian neighbouring
statesofSerbiaandCroatia.115Drawingtheirstrengthfromthe‘imagined’andthe
‘inventedtraditions’of19thcenturyEuropeannationalism,SerbiansandCroatians
questioned the authenticity of the Bosnian Muslims in their national rhetoric.116
115ForanaccountofBosnia’sinternalnationalistdivisionsrefertoButurovi,StoneSpeaker,p.128.116 This is a reference to the wellknown ImaginedCommunities, by Benedict Anderson. Andersonargues that the nation is not a given historical entity, but a constructed and ‘imagined politicalcommunity’. It isan imaginedcommunitybecausemembersofeventhesmallestnationcanneverhopetomeet,orevenhearof,allfellowmembers.Itsmembership,thus,isusuallyestablishednotuponthecommongroundsoftheobjectivelyidentifiablecriteriasuchascommonlanguage,cultureor history, but because ‘they think’ they belong to such a community. See B. Anderson, ImaginedCommunities,ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism,Verso,London&NewYork,1992.Theconceptof‘imaginedcommunity’hasalsobeenusedinrelationtoBosnia.FordiscussionoftheYugoslav ‘imaginedcommunities’seeLampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,p.
Chapter2
74
Serbian nationalism did so by promoting its superiority and resistance in the
struggle against Ottoman foreign dominations in the territories, and Croatian
nationalismbypromotingitsculturalsuperiority.117Primarilyinterestedinbuilding
uponwhattheyperceivedastheirownrealandexistingcommunities,Serbianand
Croatiannationalideologiesofthe19thcenturyprovidedverylittlesupportforthe
‘imaginedcommunity’ofBosnians.Unlike in theMiddleEast,wheretheOttoman
legacy could be considered organic or in Turkey where it might be an ancient
regime,intheBalkansandBosniatheOttomanpastbecamecommonlyframedbya
discourse of social and political segregation.118 Nevertheless, Grabrijan continued
his interest intheOttomanbuiltheritage,apassionthathesharedwithhisfriend
JurajNeidhardt.Buthiswritingsontherelevanceofthisbuiltfabrictothecollective
identityhadbeguntomakeaturn.
Thesearchfortherelevanceofhistoricfabric
Facedwithwhatheperceivedaslackofappreciation,bytheauthorities,fortheold
fabric and local population, Grabrijan began to acknowledge the difficulties
associatedwithintegratingthepastintonewSarajevo.Herealisedthatunlikeinhis
and Plenik’s Ljubljana, where integrated historic remnants formed a vital part of
thenewcityandsymbolisedthesearchforthehistoriccontinuityofSlovenians,the
40,andfortheYugoslavnationas‘astateofmind’,an‘imaginedcommunity’seeWachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation.117Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,p.40.118 Balkan historians such as Maria Todorova have argued that the main rationale behind thisattituderestsonwhatshesuggests is ‘thenotsoerroneousperceptionofsegregationofthe localChristianpopulation’andtheprivilegesthatMuslimsenjoyedwithintheessentially Islamicstate–privilege that, in historic terms, marked the interethnic relationships in Bosnia well after theOttomansleft.Todorovaarguesthatasasupranationalornonnationalstate,theOttomanEmpirein its very structure neither provided nor desired to achieve that kind of interaction. Todorova,ImaginingtheBalkans,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1997,pp.164–65.
Chapter2
75
builtfabricofBašaršijahadnosuchroleinthecollectiveimaginationofBosnians.
Its disparate visual markers and dilapidated fabric were not reminders of the
collectivehistoricexperience,butsignalledadisjointedpastandcolonialtimes.The
diversityoftheprecinct’sreligiousmonuments,whichformerlyservedthereligious
communitiesofMuslims,OrthodoxChristians,CatholicsandJews,wasbytheearly
20th century framed by growing nationalisms and increasing awareness of the
absenceofaunifiedBosniancommunity.
The potency of Bašaršija to act as a literary metaphor for the interethnic
relationship appeared in the work of a significant Yugoslav writer and the Nobel
prizewinner, Ivo Andri. Andri’s novel A Letter from 1920 described religious
markers–themosques,churchesandsynagogues–ofBašaršija, inthefollowing
way:
WhoeverliesawakeatnightinSarajevohearsthevoicesoftheSarajevonight.The
clock on the Catholic cathedral strikes the hour with weighty confidence: 2am.
Morethanaminutepasses(tobeexact,seventyfiveseconds–Icounted)andonly
thenwitharatherweaker,butpiercingsounddoestheOrthodoxchurchannounce
thehour,andchimeitsown2am.Amomentafter itthetowerclockontheBey's
[Beg’s]mosquestrikesthehourinahoarse,farawayvoice,andthatstrikes11,the
ghostly Turkish hour, by the strange calculation of distant and alien parts of the
world.TheJewshavenoclocktosoundtheirhour,soGodaloneknowswhattime
it is for them by the Sephardic reckoning or the Ashkenazy. Thus at night, while
everyone is sleeping, division keeps vigil in the counting of the late, small hours,
andseparatesthesesleepingpeoplewhoawake,rejoiceandmourn,feastandfast
byfourdifferentandantagonisticcalendars,andsendalltheirprayersandwishes
to one heaven in four different ecclesiastical languages. And this difference,
Chapter2
76
sometimes visible and open, sometimes invisible and hidden, is always similar to
hatred,andoftencompletelyidenticalwithit.119
Grabrijanhimselfregisteredtheresentmentandthedislikefortheprecinctbythe
localpopulation.Inhisarticle‘Architectureinhumanscale’,Grabrijanadmittedthat
hisappreciationsoftheoldprecinctwerenotcommonlyshared:
It [Bašaršija] is not significant, say local people. It is only the work of local
[unskilled] labourers,withoutanyqualificationsandculture–areflectionperhaps
of another cultural centre, far away from this city [Sarajevo] – one provincial
expression,[thatis]todayneglectedandinadilapidatingstate.120
TheperceptionthatBosnianarchitecturewasaprovincialcopyofthearchitecture
oftheformerempirewasasignificantcomponentofthenationalistargumentthat
questioned the authenticity of Bosnian Muslims.121 In Ottoman provincial capitals
suchwasSarajevo, itwasthedutyof the localgovernor,orvezir, toestablishthe
new city to promote the principles of Ottoman urbanism.122 Drawing inspiration
from the metropolitan sources of Istanbul, the architectural style of monumental
buildings incitiessuchasSarajevo,BursaandAmasyashareddistinctiveOttoman
119IvoAndri,ALetterfrom1920,trans.LenoreGrenoble,ForestBooks,London&Boston,Dereta,Belgrade,1992.Foradiscussionofthisnovelsee,I.Lovrenovi,Bosnia:ACulturalHistory,NewYorkUniversity Press, New York, 2001, pp. 221–23. Lovrenovic suggests that Lord Owen and some USpersonnel involved inthepeaceprocessof1992hadbeengiventhis letterasafactualdocument.Lovrenovi highlights the fact that the novel, while set in the period between two wars, was firstpublishedin1946.Forextractsfromthenovelsee,[http://www.ivoandric.org.yu/html/body_andric_s_treasury_ii.html]120Grabrijan,‘Arhitekturanadohvatovjejeruke’(Architectureinhumanscale),originallypublishedinNoviBehar, Sarajevo,1940,br.2,3; republishedasaseparate issue (sametitle)Architecture inhumanscale.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.51–70.121ForfurtherdiscussionseeAli&Bertram,‘Sarajevo:amovingtarget’.122Vizier, is a highranking political or religious adviser to a Muslim monarch, such as a caliph orsultan.TheBosnianspellingisvezir.Külliye,isatermthatdesignatesacomplexofbuildingscentredaroundamosqueandmanagedbyasingle institution,oftenbasedonavakuf. InBosniaonly thetermvakufisused.
Chapter2
77
featuressuchasstonefacades,withmetalcladdomesandpencilminarets.123This
city’s organisational structure, which was held together by this architectural
uniformity, made the city deeply Ottoman. This alliance became particularly
problematicwithgrowingnationalistviewsthatidentifieditasaresidueofcolonial
times.
Thisattitude,Grabrijanargued, ledtotheperceptionthatnothingbutacomplete
demolition and modernisation could overcome the inherent problems of the
precinct:
Iam listening to localpeoplewhosay, ‘Let’sdemolisharšija, it isall rotten, it is
unhealthy, unhygienic, backward. The people living in aršija all suffer from
rheumatism,and it is impossible to adjust it to thecontemporary standards’.But
despite that, [the precinct] possesses so many attractive features, so many
architecturalmasterpiecesthatonemustpausetoadmirethem.124
Rationalisingtheproblematicnatureofhisattemptstoreconcilethehistoricfabric
ofBašaršijawithcommonculturalandhistoricgrounds,Grabrijan’swritingsbegun
toofferanewplatformforinterpretingtheold.125
AttemptingtoneutralisetheproblematicconnectiontoIslam,asastartingpointfor
the discussion he wrote, ‘It would be necessary to establish to what extent the
123Ali&Bertram,‘Sarajevo:amovingtarget’.124Grabrijan,‘Arhitekturanadohvatovjejeruke’ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.51–70.125Originalquote:‘Kadovakousporedjujem,nemogu,adanemislimnanastojanjearh.Plenikauarhitekturigrobova.Njegovradskorodasenemožepregledati,adasenevidinjegovanadgrobnaarhitektura.Njegovatežnjautomraduudnovatosepoklapastimštosupostigliuesteticigrobovanaši Muslimani. … Plenik svjesno uklanja sagrobovasve elemente kojipobudjuju unamaosjeajsmrti: emprese zamjenjuje brezama, mogile zelenim cvijetnim poljanama, crne mrtvake natpisenadgrobnika sa živocrvenim I tako dalje.’ Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, in eli, Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.106.
Chapter2
78
Slavic soul influenced our Muslim graveyards’.126 Grabrijan wrote of ‘snow white
stones’,describingthescatteredoldgravestonesnotthroughtheirreligiousrolebut
asobjects in the landscape ‘alluniform’andseemingly ‘not groundedatall’, as if
‘they bow to each other, on green carpets of grass’.127 Their form, Grabrijan
concluded, was ‘maybe the most beautiful in the world!’128 Void of religious
connections, the gravestones were ‘artefacts of great craftsmanship and artistic
skill’thatrepresentedtheachievementoflocalartisans.129Havingestablishedtheir
value in terms of traditional craft, Grabrijan noted that if not protected they ‘will
graduallydisappear’, togetherwith thedisappearanceof the ‘stonemasonable to
cutastoneinthattraditionalshape’.130
Ultimately,Grabrijanwrote,referringtothecommonpracticeofusinglocalandfolk
imageryonMuslimgravestones,they‘depictmotivesfromapreIslamicperiod,and
Christian life’.131 Considered as generic objects from the past, the gravestones of
Sarajevo,muchliketheRomanruinsinLjubljana,couldbeincorporatedinthenew
126Originalquote:‘Kadovakousporedjujem,nemogu,adanemislimnanastojanjearh.Plenikauarhitekturigrobova.Njegovradskorodasenemožepregledati,adasenevidinjegovanadgrobnaarhitektura.Njegovatežnjautomraduudnovatosepoklapastimštosupostigliuesteticigrobovanaši Muslimani. … Plenik svjesno uklanja sagrobova sve elemente kojipobudjuju unamaosjeajsmrti: emprese zamjenjuje brezama, mogile zelenim cvijetnim poljanama, crne mrtvake natpisenadgrobnika sa živocrvenim I tako dalje.’ Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, in eli, Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.106.127 Original quote: ‘I sad me ne iznenadjuje više kad se sjeam Plenikovih izjava o muslimanskimgrobljima: “Sniježno bijeli kamenovi, svi jednoobrzni, koji se, pošto su bez temelja, jedan drugomklanjaju iznad zelenih ilima,koji im tvore travnjaci:moždanajljepšagrobljana svijetu!’Grabrijan,‘Muslimgraveyards’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.128Grabrijan,‘Muslimanskagroblja’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.129Grabrijan,‘Muslimanskagroblja’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.130Originalquote:‘Nišaniiznadmuslimanskihgrobovaestopokazujumotiveiztogapredislamskog,krisanskogživota. Iovihspomenikabiesvamanje Imanje, jošmalopaneetemoivišepronaiklesara, koji bi umio iskelsati taj tradicionalni oblik.’ Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, in eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.131 Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, 14. 6, 1936; republished in NoviBehar,Sarajevo,1937,br.5–6,god.XI.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.
Chapter2
79
artistic creations. Seizing an opportunity to present the architectural relics of
Sarajevoasapartofbroaderartisticefforts,Grabrijanwrote:
When I compare [Islam and Christianity] I cannot avoid thinking of Plenik’s
attempts in the architecture of graveyards … Strangely enough his attempts are
very similar with what the Muslims have achieved in their aesthetics of
necropolis.132
Grabrijan’ssearchfora lesshistoricallychargedinterpretationofwhatoftenwere
explicitly religious forms of gravestones and like structures, began to offer new
possibilities for the integrationofhistoric references innew urbanproposals.The
emphasis on the universal qualities of architectural responses diminished the
significance of the religious differences. Further, it allowed Grabrijan to invest art
withthecapacitytotranscendreligiousandnationalbarriers.
Themodernityofpast:‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’
It was in the 1936 article ‘Le Corbusier and Sarajevo’ that Grabrijan directed the
relevance of local architectural heritage to the future and modern architecture,
unlikePlenikwhodirectedittothepast.
DespiteGrabrijan’sclearadmirationofPlenik’sarchitecturalachievements,hedid
notsharehis teacher’sviewofmodernarchitecture,orhisdislikeofLeCorbusier
andhispromotionofmodernarchitecture’ssocialagenda.Thehistoryandtheory
curriculum of Plenik’s school terminated with mid19thcentury debates; ‘[the]
beginningofourmodernstyle,anewperiod inarchitecture’,Plenikstatedtohis
students,markedtheendofhisdiscussiononstyle,andconsequentlyestablisheda 132Grabrijan,‘Muslimanskagroblja’,eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.
Chapter2
80
timeframe for his discussion of architecture’s development.133 Plenik frequently
stated his limited enthusiasm towards modern interest in materiality and
innovation. Grabrijan recorded Plenik suggesting to students interested in the
modernagendatolook‘inbooks[where]youwillfindonyourownwhatisnew[in
modern architecture].’134 And with a clear resentment towards the agenda of
architectssuchasLeCorbusier,Pleniktoldhisstudentsthathewas‘notinterested
inmodern’.135Admittingthepossibilityofawrongstance,hestated,‘Maybethatis
mymistake,butthatishowitis,andnotmuchcanbedoneaboutit?’136
Plenik justified his position by what he saw as a lack of the divine in modern
architecture’s focus on the pragmatic. He stated, ‘what they [modern architects]
want is a means towards an end, not an idea.’137 Particularly critical of Le
Corbusier’s promotion of the social role of architecture, Plenik argued that Le
Corbusier‘alltogethernegated’architectureasheconsideredit‘asocialtool,anda
tool used in helping man’.138 Grabrijan noted that Plenik often used a German
saying–‘esistaucheineIdee,aberkeinvonGottkommende!’[‘Itisanidea,butitis
notinspiredbyGod’]–whenreferringtoLeCorbusier’swork.139Itappearsthathe
133Originalquote:‘1848nastanevEvropivelikipreobrat.Znjimsezaenjanašmodernislog,tosepravi,novadobavarhitekturi.Takosmoprišlidonekegakoncategapremišljevanja,menizazelenoginvampriakovanega.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.134Originalquote: ‘Takoprihajmodanespopulnomaistih rokvnovodobo.Kulturnoživljenje jevnekismeritudiprinastakobujno,dalahkoiztegasenekajustvarite.Pregledovalipamodernenebomo,našlibisesamivknjigahto,karjenovega.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.135Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79.136Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79137Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79138Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.80.139Originalquote:‘MislimdarejšenjesvijetaneležitolikouLCkolikouboljimIskoromnijmdjelima:ovjekmoraostatiponižen.ŠtobiNjemcirekli:tojetakodjeideja,alinedolaziodBoga.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79.
Chapter2
81
interpretedLeCorbusier’soutspokenenthusiasmfortheprofaneaspectsoflife,his
interest in efficiency and the economics of cities to be in a direct contrast to his
respectforthehigharts.140
DespitesuchhostilitiesGrabrijanandhiscolleagueswereeagertoparticipateinthe
modernist debate, especially since the new technical schools and architecture
programs within the kingdom attracted the return of a number of architects who
had practised abroad.141 Even within the school where Plenik was teaching,
Professor Ivan Vurnik ran classes that openly promoted aspects of the modern
agenda.Grabrijan,likemanyofhiscontemporaries,believedthatintroducingthese
ideasintocontemporarypracticebroughtlocalandnationaltraditionsclosertoan
internationalagenda.
InobservingandwritingaboutSarajevo,Grabrijanrecognisedtheurbanandformal
qualities discussed by Le Corbusier in his Journey to the East.142 Referring to the
140However,thestudents,Grabrijanamongthem,wereinterestedincontemporarydebates.Inanattempttokeepupwithcurrentarchitecturaldebates,Grabrijan’s classorganisedanexcursiontothe InternationalExhibitionofModernDecorativeand IndustrialArts inParis in1925.Pleniksawthisasachallengetohisteachingmethods.Hedeclinedthestudentinvitationtoaccompanythem,pullingoutatthelastmoment.Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.160.141TomislavPremerl,inHrvatskaModernaArhitekturaizmedjudvarata,suggestedthatAdolfLoosmadeasignificantimpactontheZagrebarchitecturalscene,througharchitectssuchasKovacicandEhrlich.ZlatkoNeumannwasLoos’studentandcollaborator,andVladoPotonjakworkedwithhiminParis.Manyother significantEuropean architectsdisseminated their ideasvia theworkof theirstudentsorcolleagues.The influenceofPoelzigreachedZagrebviaDragoIbler,ZdenkoStrižicandJosipPiman,whileErnestWeissmann,JurajNeidhardt,DragoIblerandZlatkoNeimannpromotedof Le Corbusier’s ‘school of thought’. T. Premerl,HrvatskaModernaArhitektura izmedju dva rata(Croatian Modern Architecture Between the Two World Wars), Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske,Zagreb,1989,p.31.142 I. Žanki, (ed.), Le Corbusier (CharlesEdouard Jeanneret), Journey to the East, MIT Press,Cambridge,Ma.,1987.
Chapter2
82
architectureofBašaršija’smahala, theresidentialsector thatsurroundedtheold
OttomanpartofthecityofSarajevo,Grabrijanwrote:143
IamlookingatLeCorbusier’s firstpublication. It startswithhissketchesfromhis
travels, on which he later based his modern architecture. But that is a Bosnian
house!Therearethegardensthatsurroundit!Themosqueandminarets!Thereis
also the Muslim graveyard and grave stones, with beautiful views through lattice
windowsframedbytheheavywalls!144
Astonishedbyhisowndiscoveryofstructuresthatsomuchresembledthebuildings
describedinLeCorbusier’sJourneytotheEast,Grabrijanasked145‘HasLeCorbusier
beentoBosnia?Whataretheparallelsbetweencontemporarymodernarchitecture
and Bosnian houses – between modern and Islamic architecture?’146 Focusing on
this relationship, Grabrijan presented multiple analogies between the buildings
sketchedbyLeCorbusierandtheBosnianhouse,thesubjectofhisdiscussion.
Arguing for a relationship between Bašaršija and Le Corbusier’s ideas, Grabrijan
presentedananalysisofspecificbuildingswithintheprecinct.Bothinformandthe
material used, the fabric of Bašaršija, Grabrijan argued, resembled the context
uponwhichLeCorbusierpremisedhisarchitecture.Withtherelationshipbetween
Le Corbusier’s work and local architectural practices often assumed rather than
143 Grabrijan, ‘Le Corbusier I Sarajevo Uoi izložbe njegovog bivšeg asistenta arh. Juraja J.Neidhardta’,(LeCorbusierandSarajevo),originallypublishedinJugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,31.10,1936;citedineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.29–37.144 Original quote: ‘Gledam Le Corbusieve prve publikacije. Pocinje skicama sa svojih studijskihputovanja,nakojimakasnijeosnivasvojumodernu.PatojeBosanskakuca!Tosuvrtoviokonje!TudžamijaImunare!ItujemuslimanskogrobljeInišani,sadivnimpogledimakrozzamreženeprozore,usjeeneu zidaneograde! Da li je LeCorbusier biou Bosni? Kakve su paralele izmedju današnje Ibosanskekue–izmedjumoderneIislamskearhitekture?’Grabrijan,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.29.145Žanki , LeCorbusier, Journey to theEast.ForadiscussionofLeCorbusierandOrientalismseeÇelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,Assemblage,17,December1992,pp.59–77.146D.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.29.
Chapter2
83
demonstrated,Grabrijanarguedthatthetreatmentofmaterials,constructionand
lighting in Bašaršija combined with the city’s organisation of spaces and the
plasticityof formswerevaluessharedbetweentheBosnian traditionalhouseand
LeCorbusier’sarchitecture.Theuseofconcrete,forexample,asthe‘materialofLe
Corbusier’s architecture’ was relevant to the discussion on materiality of the
Bosnian house;147 but not through the expected similarity of the material but
throughasimilartimberliketreatmentofthesurface.LeCorbusierachievedthisby
the use of timber’seffect on offform concrete, and in thecase of the traditional
Bosnianhousebytheuseofatimberconstructionsystem.
Extendingthis,Grabrijanperceivedaresemblanceinbuildingsystemsthatliftedthe
structures above the ground. Le Corbusier used concrete piloti, while traditional
Bosnian structures used timber posts. Despite sometimes tenuous links between
the two, Grabrijan concluded that the roof lighting, doubleheight spaces, glass
elevation, simple cubic massing and even the placement of buildings within the
open greenery were all shared qualities. Relying on the modern authority of Le
Corbusier’swork,Grabrijan impliedthattheparallelshepresentedweresufficient
todemonstratethemodernityoftraditionalBosnianarchitecture.Presentedwithin
the context of modern architectural debates, the built fabric of the old precinct
offerednewrelevance.
147D.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.29.
Chapter2
84
Theauthenticityofpast:‘Turkishhouse,itssourcesandprinciples’
Grabrijan’s1937article‘Turkishhouse,itssourcesandprinciples’appearedinNovi
Behar, a paper read mostly by the Muslim population of the city – unlike his ‘Le
Corbusier and Sarajevo’ (1936), published in the progovernment journal
Jugoslovenski List.148 This suggests Grabrijan’s increasing awareness of the
problematic associations between Bašaršija’s structures and the Ottoman past,
andan increasingdesire togain thesupport fromthe localMuslimpopulation. In
thisarticleGrabrijanadmittedthathediscoveredtheBosnianhouseinthewritings
ofSwissarchitectErnstEgli(1893–74):
I have seen it [the Turkish house] in the Muslim house of Sarajevo, and was
surprised by the extraordinary similarities between its aspiration and those of
modern architecture. So, a double interest binds me to the [Bosnian Muslim]
house; firstly this house is also our house, and secondly – it contains some long
establishedbeauties,thatIwouldliketoapplytoourmodernarchitecture.149
ReferringtoEgli’sresearch,Grabrijanremarkedthatalmostallobservationsbythe
SwissTurkisharchitecton theTurkishhousecouldbealsoapplied to theBosnian
house.150 Egli’s most significant assistant was Sedad Hakki Eldem (1908–88), who
built his reputation leading the quest for a national expression in modernism,
148 D. Grabrijan, ‘Turska kua Osnove i porijeklo’ (Turkish house, its roots and origins), originallypublished in Novi Behar, Sarajevo, 15. 7, 1937; cited in eli, Grabrijan i Sarajevo, pp. 37–43.HadjijahisuggeststhatNoviBeharwasafamilyorientedpublicationcateringmostlyfortheMuslimpopulationofthecity.M.Hadjijahi,OdTradicijedoIdentiteta(FromTraditiontoIdentity),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1974,p.203.149 Original quote: ‘No moje zanimanje za tursku kuu ima drugu osnovu. Upoznao sam je umuslimanskoj kui u Sarajeva, a iznenadila me udnovata slinost njezinih osnovnih težnji satežnjama moderne arhitekture. Tako me svezao za nju dvostruki interes; prvi: ovo je kua i našakua,adrugi–onasadržinekeiskušaneljepote,kojebihhtioprimjenitiinanašumodernu.’Ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.42.150Egli,suggestedSibelBozdogan,hadreplacedtheclassicalBeauxArtsmodelofeducationwithonebased on the rationalist and functionalist principles of European modernism. Bozdogan & Kasaba,ModernismandNationBuilding,pp.57&70.GrabrijanexplainedthatDr.EgliwasaSwissarchitectwhotaughtarchitectureatTechnicalUniversityandpractisedarchitectureinIstanbul.
Chapter2
85
definingandjustifyingthenewprofessionalidentityofthearchitectandpromoting
theNewArchitectureastheappropriateexpressionforthenewTurkey.151
Of particular importance to Grabrijan was Egli and Eldem’s interest in the
vernacular. The understanding of modern architecture as contextsensitive and
rational underpinned the architectural discourse of Turkey during the 1930s.
Embedded in the architects’ approach was a belief that ‘modern equals national’,
and that the most rational and appropriate response to the region’s climatic,
topographical,cultural,social,andeconomicconditions‘couldnotbeanythingbut
‘national’.152Theidealsofmodernarchitectureandthevernaculartraditionswere,
in their view, one and the same. That European modernism was inspired by
vernaculartraditionsonlyfurtherstrengthenedthisbelief.
Grabrijan’s article on the Turkish house relied on a free interpretation of Egli’s
thesis, adjusted to fit the case under consideration: the Bosnian house. This
techniqueallowedGrabrijantopositioninternationaldebatesclosertotheBosnian
context, as well as to heighten the relevance of his own writings and arguments.
Just as he used the authority of Le Corbusier to affirm the modernity of Bosnian
house, Grabrijan presented Egli’s published paper as a confirmation of his own
academicviews.
151Bozdogan&Kasaba,ModernismandNationBuilding,p.158.152Bozdogan&Kasaba,ModernismandNationBuilding,p.256.
Chapter2
86
InthecontextofBosnia,wherenationalclaimswerebasedontheuniquenessand
exclusivevaluesofdifferentethnicgroups,theamalgamationof internationaland
national influences within the Bosnian house seemed an appealing model.153
AffirmingtheEast/West,Orient/Occident,nature/cultureduality,Grabrijanargued
thattheWesternemphasisonrationalityrenderedthepeople‘coldanddistanced
from nature’, while the Turkish emotional disposition helped them establish ‘a
specialconnectiontonature’.154Presentingtherelationbetweenthehouseandthe
surrounding landscape as essential for understanding the underlying conceptual
organisation,Grabrijanidentifiedthe‘fence,gardenandpavilion’asthethreebasic
elementsofthehouse.155Thespecificsoftheirrelationship,accordingtoGrabrijan,
madetheTurkishhouseunique.Hesuggestedthat:
… the Turkish house is so different to other [houses]. It developed in a climate
where nature whispers to man and man responds with a smile, enjoying it and
lookingatitwithinhisorderedandframedworld.Inthatrelationshipbetweenthe
two, nature becomes an element of composition; and nature transforms into
architecture–thehouse’sexternalexpressionbecomesarchitecturalplasticity.156
ClearlythemodernityoftheBosnian,viatheTurkish,housewasnotonlyexpressed
in the formal architectural characteristics, such as the construction system or the
materialused,butinacomplexemotionalrelationshipbetweenthepeople,house
153Publishedin1936,Grabrijan’spaper‘Smallfamilyhome’discussedthemainpointsofthe‘housewith one wall’ as designed by Loos. The same paper also commented on the students’ projectundertakeninGrabrijan’sclass,whichanalysedLoos’houseinitsrelevancetothecontextofBosnia.D.Grabrijan,‘Porodinamalakua’(Smallfamilyhome),Tehniar,Beograd,April1936,br.7;ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.161–66.154eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.38.155eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.37–43.156Originalquote:‘Automseodnosupremaprirodeturskakuabitnorazlikujeodnjih.Onajenastaluklimigdjeprirodeovjekušapue;ovjekjojsesmješkomodaziva;uživaunjojipromatrajeusvomomedjenom i sredjenom svijetu. Prema takvom odnosu priroda postaje elemenat kompozicije;prirodeprelaziuarhitekturu–kuasepremavanijavljakaoarhitektonskaplastika.Grabrijanineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.38.
Chapter2
87
andland.Grabrijan’sinsistenceonthecapacityofBosnianarchitecturetonegotiate
suchdiverseaspectsofurbanismremainedakeyaspectofhiswriting.
Like Riegl, Grabrijan attempted to reach beyond formal qualities and what he
referred to as ‘dogma of materialism’; his discussion of heritage’s value to
contemporarycreationsfocusedthelesstangibleconnectionsbetweenthepeople
andtheirart.Practicesofdailylivesandexperienceprovidedthespatialframework
forhissearch.Hedescribedthehousesandoutsideshelters forteferi,picniclike
gatheringscommonlyheldbytheMuslims,arguingthat itwas in thosestructures
thatthecreativityoflocalpeopleandtheirwilltoartwasmostevident:
Ottomansknewaboutplacingthebuildingsinnature,andthatishighart.He[the
Ottomanman]placesthehousenotonlyonhills,oronthemostbeautifulspotsin
themiddleofgardens,butabovethewatertoo(caféBendbašaandVrbanja)with
thestructurethatallowshimtoextendabovethewater intotheair,architecture
thatceasestoberationalandmovesintotherealmoffantasy.157
Itwasinstructuresbuiltfordailyroutinesthattheimaginationofthepeople,their
regard for practicality and their relationship to nature, were in Grabrijan’s view
most clearly expressed. While nature emerged as a significant reference point in
Grabrijan’s writings, a specific description of the natural environment either in
terms of garden design or the layout of the landscape was not presented. This
approachsuggestedthatnaturewasseenasanabstractforce,onethatmediated
157Originalquote:‘Osmanlijaumijekuuplasiratiuprirodi,itojevelikiumjetnost!Onjestavljanesamopobrežuljcima,nanajljepšamjesta, usred vrtova,ve i iznadsamevode (kafanaBendbaša iVrbanja),a konstrukcije mu pri tomedozvoljava da prostorije izbacuje ak ipreko vodeu vazduh,imearhitekturaprestajebitiracionalnaiprelaziupodrujefantazije.’D.Grabrijan,‘Kulturateferia(osvrtnabosansko islamskuarhitekturu)’(OnBosniancultureofteferi[picnics],viewofBosnianIslamicarchitecture), JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,8.7,1939.Cited ineli,Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.46.
Chapter2
88
the relationship between humans and their buildings. As a result, thebuilt fabric,
Grabrijansuggested,embodiedqualitiesthatWesterncivilisationwasstilltryingto
achieve: ‘Theprinciplesofthegardencity,whichEuropeancivilisationseeks,have
already been established in Turkey (Istanbul) or here in old Sarajevo’.158 This, in
Grabrijan’s view, was further evidence of traditional architecture’s relevance to
contemporaryendeavours.
Conclusion:roleofarchitectureinestablishingnationalclaims
Grabrijan’s professional duty as an architect was to identify and promote values
associated with the heritage fabric of Bosnia that were relevant to contemporary
architectureandurbanplanning.OnceinSarajevo,Grabrijanlookedforremnantsof
the past that could be brought to life, in a manner similar to Plenik’s urban
programforLjubljana.Inabeliefthatsuchremnantswouldprovidevisualcuesand
connectionstothecollectivehistoryofthepeopleGrabrijanidentifiedthehistoric
precinctofBašaršijatobeofparticularrelevance.Inhiswritingshesoughtwaysto
promoteitsimportancetocontemporaryurbandevelopments.
But Bašaršija, being historically connected to Ottoman colonialism and gradually
outgrown by the new city of Sarajevo, was not considered a place for collective
representation.Indeed,bythetimeGrabrijanstartedwritingaboutit,theprecinct
was under a considerable attack – by outright demolition or passive neglect. It
appearsthatGrabrijansoonrealisedtheproblematicpoliticalpotencyofSarajevo’s
oldfabric,ashiswritingsadoptedadifferentapproachtotheonepromotedbyhis 158eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.45.
Chapter2
89
teacher in Ljubljana. They presented the historic precinct’s fabric not in its
relationshiptothepastanditsreligiousorigins,butasmodernandauthentic,and
as an embodiment of the people’s collective artistic will. As this chapter has
demonstrated, through these texts Grabrijan established an initial but critical
relationship between the city’s Ottoman heritage and the Yugoslav, or more
specifically Bosnian, identity. Later chapters will demonstrate that these writings
provided the theoretical grounding for his and Neidhardt’s collaborative work. In
their first collaborative effort ‘Sarajevo and its Satellites’, however Bašaršija’s
Ottomanfabricfoundonlyalimitedplace.
Chapter3Bašaršija’sContributiontotheNewMasterPlanofSarajevo:theIslamicasOriental
In1942,GrabrijanandNeidhardtguesteditedanissueoftheCroatianarchitectural
journal Technical Gazette (Tehniki Vjesnik).1 Titled ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’
(Sarajevoinjegovitrabanti),thepublicationcontributedtoarchitecturalandurban
debates and to the development of the regulatory urban plan of Sarajevo.2 It
providedanopportunityfortheauthorstopresenttheirdesignworkandwritings–
bothindividualandcollaborative–framedbyasharedvisionofanewmasterplan
forthecityofSarajevo.
This chapter argues that despite the authors’ interest in and fascination with the
historiccoreofSarajevo,theirmasterplanessentiallydeniedtherelevanceofthe
existing city fabric to the growing city. Their discussion of the old precinct
demonstratestheauthors’intentiontomoveawayfromasearchfortheauthentic
qualitiesoftheoldfabricandthemodernityexistingwithinit.Instead,itassociated
1D.Grabrijan&J.Neidhardt,‘Sarajevoinjegovitrabanti’,TehnikiVjesnik,br.7–9,Zagreb,1942.Thepublication was partially sponsored by Neidhardt’s employer at the time, the Croatian MiningCompany(HrvatskiRudniciiTalionice).ThelistofcreditsincludestheCroatianEngineeringSociety,theeditorialboardofTehnikiVjesnikandthedirectorateofCroatianMinesandSteelProduction.2 The translation of publication’s title is my own. The word trabant (plural trabanti) meansattachment, something that follows. Despite the difference in English between ‘attachment’ and‘satellite’(satelitinbothSerboCroatianandBosnian)thetranslationoftrabantito‘satellites’makesmore sense. I am aware of the problematic connotations of ‘satellites’ in the context of 1920s’debates concerning the urban vs. suburban satellite, particularly Le Corbusier’s hesitation aroundsuburban expansion, as discussed in McLeod, ‘Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from regionalsyndicalismtoVichy’.
Chapter3
92
Islamic urban forms with stereotypical and preconceived notions based on
oppositional relationships between new and old, between progressive and
backward. As this chapter demonstrates, the result of this approach was that
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s master plan assigned only a peripheral role to the old
precinct within their proposed vision. This was moderated to some extent by
Neidhardt’spresentationofminingworkers’housingprojects.Inthisheanticipated
theshiftthatbecameapparentintheirsubsequentcollaborativework,Architecture
ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,published15yearslaterin1957.
Anurbanvisionofamoderncity:‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’
The opportunity to editTechnicalGazetteprovided an occasion for Grabrijan and
Neidhardttopresenttheirideastoabroadnationalaudience.3Itallowedthemto
reconsider their previous views, such as those outlined in Grabrijan’s 1936 article
‘ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo’.4InthatarticleGrabrijan
hadidentifiedthecity’slackofanoverarchingurbanvisionasaseriousobstacleto
future development, and raised concerns about the haphazard approach of local
governmentwhendealingwith theheritage fabricof thecity. In ‘Sarajevoand Its
Satellites’GrabrijanandNeidhardtofferedguidelinesandsuggestionsthatcouldbe
usedtoaddressthoseconcerns.
3TechnicalGazettewaspublishedinZagrebbytheCroatianSocietyofEngineers(HrvatskoDruštvoinžinjera).BothBosniaandHercegovinaandCroatiaatthetimebelongedtotheIndependentStateofCroatia(NezavisnaDržavaHrvatska;NDH).TheIndependentStateofCroatiawasapuppetstateofNaziGermany,createdbyfascistItalyandNaziGermany.Itwasestablishedin1941,aftertheKingdomofYugoslaviawasattackedbytheAxisforcesandtheKingdomofYugoslaviawassplitupbyNaziGermanyandfascistItaly.Geographically,NDHencompassedmostofmoderndayCroatiaandallofBosniaandHercegovina,aswellaspartsofSloveniaandSerbia.TheNDHwasruledbyAntePaveliandhisUstašamilitaryforces.4D.Grabrijan‘Sarajevoseizgradjuje,NekolikopolemikihmisliourbanizacijiSarajeva’(ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo),ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.101–05.
Chapter3
93
Theopeningstatementof‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’–‘conservetheold–butbuild
anewSarajevo!’–createdabroadframeworkforunderstandingtheideasbehind
the vision of thecity presented.5 ‘Whichever way the city of Sarajevo develops in
the future’, the authors argued, certain principles ‘embedded in its historic
development ought to be respected’.6 Taking the Acropolis as the root of Greek,
and ultimately Western civilisation, the authors declared that their search for the
‘architecturalprinciples’ofnewBosnianarchitecturewouldconsiderequallytheold
precinctandthemoderncity.7
For Neidhardt, the study of the old town in relation to issues of contemporary
urbanism reminded him of his time spent in Le Corbusier’s office.Neidhardt had
worked in Le Corbusier’s atelier at 35 rue de Sevres in Paris from 1January 1933
untilwellinto1935.8Hewasinvolvedinawiderangeofprojects,includingmaster
plans for Algiers and Nemours.9 Neidhardt was significantly influenced by Le
5 Original quote: ‘Konzervirajmo staro – ali izgradimo novo Sarajevo!’ Grabrijan & Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.210.6 Original quote: ‘Kakogod se Sarajevo u budunosti razvijalo, u svakom sluaju iz njegovogdosadašnjegrazvojaostajuizvjesnaiskustva,kojatrebauvažavati’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.7Originalquote:‘AkropolajošIdanasživimeunama,njeniprincipisusvudarasijani–jersuvjeni.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.8 Certificate to J. Neidhardt issued by Le Corbusier: ‘I certify that Mr. J. Neidhardt architect fromZagrebworkedinourofficefrom1January1933untiltheendofthesummer1935’.Paris,22August1937.J.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.115.9LeCorbusier’sinvolvementwithAlgiersspanstheperiodbetween1932and1942.Whileworkinginhis office, Neidhardt was involved in a number of projects, including urban proposals for Algiers(1933–34) and for Nemours (Algeria), Anvers (Belgium) and Stockholm (Sweden). He was alsoinvolvedinstudiesofthe‘futurecity’–LaVilleRadieuse–thebuildingofRentenanstaltinZurich,aprojectforthe1937exhibition(foravenueKallerman)andresearchforanagriculturalreorganisationscheme(afarmandvillage).TheextentofhiscontributiontotheAlgiersprojectisunclear,butinalettertohisfriendKarlMittelin1933,NeidhardtmentionedhisinvolvementwiththeAlgiersproject
Chapter3
94
Corbusier’s ideas, and was particularly intrigued by the Algerian project, in which
the dialogue between ‘Islamic’ and ‘modern’ echoed themes apparent in
Yugoslavia.ConvincedthattheSwissFrencharchitecthad‘discoveredtheprinciple
[of urban planning] somewhere in the Islamic world – somewhere in Algiers’,
Neidhardtwaseager to explore the IslamicaspectsofBosnianarchitecture.10The
opportunitytopresentanurbanplanforthecityofferedanidealprospect.
In addition to the timely urban debates, the physical fabric of Sarajevo reminded
NeidhardtofAlgiers.11LikeAlgiers,Sarajevoconsistedof twodistincturbanparts:
theoldBašaršija,visuallymarkedbysmallalleysandIslamicmonuments,andthe
modern European quarters, structured along wide, regular streets lined with
eclectic buildings. Grabrijan had already noted this oppositional relationship
between modern and traditional in his articles. And for Neidhardt, the Occident–
Orient relationship had the potential to enrich his own architectural approach by
unitingthe‘rational’and‘sensual’andbydevelopingthethemesdiscussedwithLe
Corbusier.
Adding to the similarities of terrain and configuration was the increasing
importance of the urban plan on city development. In Sarajevo, as in Algiers,
urbanismwasbecomingamajorpublicconcern. In the1940s,Sarajevostill relied
andsuggested thathecontributedto thedevelopmentofLeCorbusier’sbrisesoleil idea. J.KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,p.53.10Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.227.11ForfurtherdiscussionofLeCorbusier’sinvolvementwithAlgiersandadescriptionofthecityseeMcLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,p.335.
Chapter3
95
onan1891plan,developedbytheAustro–Hungarianadministration(1878–1913).12
It addressed the city as a whole and highlighted the colonial government’s
commitment to the city’s westward development, away from Bašaršija.13 The
linearstructureofthismasterplanpromotedarationalurbanorganisation,which
was introducedby theAustro–Hungariangovernment. Itendorsedzoningandthe
orthogonal street system that came to replace the irregular Ottoman street
layouts.14 The 1891 plan underpinned the basic outline for the city’s urban
development until well into the 20th century.15 The destruction and collapse of
numerous historic buildings, mentioned in the previous chapter, as well as
structuressuchasJakubPašinMesdžid,whichwasbuiltin1491anddemolishedin
1936,andamosquebuiltin1540,promptedGrabrijantocallforacomprehensive
urban plan.16 Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of an urban plan for Sarajevo
consolidatedtheirvisionwithbroaderpublicandprofessionalconcerns.
Like Le Corbusier17, who recommended that Algiers retain its basic linear
organisation because it was particularly suited to ‘modern life’ and rapid
transportation, Grabrijan and Neidhardt retained the linear layout established by
12Evenatthetimeofitsdevelopmentthe1891planhadlimitedscope.Itwasoriginallydevelopedin1879fortheprecinctofBašaršija,butwasextendedandputinplaceonlyafterfiredestroyedmuchoftheprecinctin1891.13 M. umruki, ‘Izrada Generalnog Urbanistikog Plana’ (The development of a general urbanplan),inM.ankovi(ed.),SarajevouSocijalistikojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950, Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo, vol. 1, Sarajevo, 1988, pp. 387–88. In its scope the planextendedfromBašaršija,throughthenewlyestablishedurbancentretothesuburbs,asfarwestasDolacMalta.14TofacilitatesuchchangestheAustro–Hungariansintroducedtheregulatorysystemofcadastre–asystemoflandownershipregistration.15 Various partial urban regulatory plans were proposed and accepted, but a master plan for thewholecityofSarajevowasonlyacceptedin1974.16 For more detailed discussion of the destruction of Muslim heritage see, Koštovi, Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZlaSarajevo,pp.169–85.17McLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,p.337.
Chapter3
96
theAustro–Hungarianplannersintheirnew1942masterplanproposal.Itincluded
the old precinct, as well as the subsequent urban development by the Austro–
HungarianandtheYugoslavgovernments.Theapproachsupportedthelinearityof
electric tramways, in operation since 1895, and made provision for the city to
expandsidewayswhileremainingconnectedviaacentralspine.18‘Thecityislikea
human organism’, they wrote: ‘It has its heart (cultural centre), brain
(administrative section), stomach (business section), lungs (green areas), and
arteriesandveins (communications).’19Thisbiologicalanalogywas represented in
the drawing ‘Schematic representation of the new suburbs of the middle Bosnian
mining basin’ [Figure 7]. Evoking the organic foundation of the proposal, the
drawingshowedafreeflowingbodyofstreetsandurbancentres.
Despitetheirrepeatedstatementsthattheurbanplanwouldofferacomprehensive
solutionfortheexistingcitycentreandhistoricprecinct,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’s
preoccupation appears to be with the new city –beyond the borders of the old
precinct. The proposed plan included a geographically expansive area, which
indicated the authors’ interest in largescale planning and regional development.
The inclusion of six new satellite towns showed the extent of their ambition. The
satellites’ proximity to Sarajevo varied from Ilidža (2), only about 10 kilometres
away from the old town, to Breza (1), Riica (3) and VarešMajdan (6) up to 45
kilometres away, to towns as far as Zenica (7), some 70 kilometres away. On a
18 Horsepulled tramways were introduced in 1884. H. Kreševljakovi, Sarajevo za vrijemeAustrougarske uprave (1878–1918) (Sarajevo During the AustroHungarian Government), IzdanjeArhivaGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo1969,p.33.19Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.202.
Chapter3
97
microurbanscale,theproposalaimedto introducearegularstreetnetwork,with
asmany‘squaresaspossibletomaximisesunandgreenery’.20Itidentifiedhygiene
asa‘necessary[precondition]forthedevelopmentofanyhealthyandprogressive
city.’21‘Wellorganisedstreetsandregularblocks’were,theyargued,thebackbone
ofasuccessfulurbanproposal.22
Figure 7: ‘Schematic representationof thenewsuburbs ofthe middle Bosnian mining basin’. Map of satellite townsincluded in the proposal: (1) old and new Sarajevo; (2)Ilidža; (3)Breza; (4)Riica; (5)Riica;(6)VarešMajdan; (7)Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.272.
20Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.241.21Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.202.22Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.203.
Chapter3
98
Onlyarelativelysmallsectionoftheplan,labelled‘OldandnewSarajevo’,related
to the existing town of Sarajevo (1). The master plan thus conceptually extended
thecityboundariesawayfromBašaršija,towardsthegrowingAustrian–Hungarian
sectionof thecity tothewestandout tothedevelopingmining townsofBosnia.
The mining towns, which were historically independent, were considered new
suburbsofSarajevo,or‘itssatellites’,assuggestedbytheproject’stitle.
Even in considering issues related to the existing city, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s
efforts focused on the city at large. The drawing titled ‘East–west artery’ defined
the perimeter by existing monuments in a layout that referenced a human body
[Figure 8]. The entry ‘gate’ was marked by the site dedicated to a new railway
station.23 The ‘lobby’ was associated with the Catholic church at Marijin Dvor
(ChurchofSt.Joseph,1940),the‘foyer’withthemajorintersectioninfrontofthe
mosque of Ali Pasha (1560–61), while other monuments, such as the Orthodox
church (Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God, 1874) and the Catholic
CathedraloftheSacredHeartof Jesus (1889),markedthecitycentre.Thecentral
roadthatcoincidedwiththeexistingPavelievaStreet linkedthemonuments into
whatappearedanaturalandorganicbodilyform,andtheoldprecinctofBašaršija
wasenclosedandconnectedtotherestofthetownonlybythemainroad.24With
major monuments marking the urban context, the proposal’s visual presentation
23Grabrijanreviewedthe1935ideacompetitionforthenewrailwaystationinthearticle‘Sarajevskiželjezniki problem, konkretni predlog’ (The problem of Sarajevo railway station, a proposal),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,1.7.1936.24ThisstreetwasnamedafterAntePaveli,theCroatianfascistleaderwhoheadedaCroatianstatesubservienttoGermanyandItalyduringWorldWarTwo.DuringsocialistYugoslaviathestreetwasnamedafterJosipBrozTito,theYugoslavcommunistleaderandthepresidentofthestate.
Chapter3
99
looked more like a tourist map than a professionally designed contribution to a
developingurbanmasterplan.
Figure 8: ‘East–west artery’, an urban vision for Sarajevopresentedinitsrelationtosignificantlocations(fromtoptobottom of the drawing) that include: city gate at BijelaTabija; bazaar of Bašaršija; King Tvrtko urban square;StjepanTomaševiurbansquare,intersectioninfrontofAliPasha’s Mosque, Marijin Dvor and New Railway Station.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.239.
Chapter3
100
Theoldprecinctandthenewcity
Grabrijan and Neidhardt present their discussion of Bašaršija in the section of
‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ titled ‘Heritage’ (Predaja).25 Despite the introductory
statementssuggestingtheauthors’interestinandfascinationwiththeprecinct,the
review of historic development relied on two secondary sources. The first was
credited to the wellknown chronicler of Ottoman times, Evlija elebija, and
presented an extract from his 17thcentury travel journal ‘Sarajevo from 1069–72
(1650–53)’.26ThesecondwasGrabrijan’sfreeinterpretationofthe1916article‘The
rightonview’,originallywrittenbytheAustro–HungarianarchitectJosipPospišil.27
BothtextspresentedpositiveviewsofSarajevo.elebija’saccountintroduceditas
‘themostbeautifulofall’and‘oneofthegreatestOttomancitiesofthetime’.28The
commentswereextendedbyPospišil’sdescriptionofthesurroundingfabricofthe
mahala(neighbourhood). Itwastheharmoniousrelationshipbetweenhousesand
gardens,Pospišilargued,thatdemonstratedinurbantermsthehighethicalvalues
ofthepeoplewhodesignedandbuiltthosestructures.Referringtothecustomary
lawsthatupheldthekeepingofneighbours’unobstructedviews,Pospišilpresented
theurban fabricofmahala asaphysicalmanifestationof thenaturalandorganic
unityofplanningandculturalpractices[Figure9].
25Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,pp.210–25.26 Reference made to the Hijri (Hidžra in Bosnian) calendar. Years 1069–72 are equivalent to theyears1650–53intheGregoriancalendar.TheIslamiccalendarmarksyearsinrelationtotheIslamicprophetMuhammad'semigrationfromMeccatoMedina.27Anotestatesthattheincludedtextisa‘freeinterpretation’oftheoriginaldiscussionbyPospišilpresented in Monatschrift für Städtebau, No.617, 1916. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.224.28 Original quote: ‘Na zemlji ima po imenu ‘Saraj’ nekoliko gradova … ali Bosna – saraj od sviju jenajureenijiinajljepšikamenegrad!’,inGrabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.224.
Chapter3
101
Figure 9: Drawings illustrating the organic unity of terrainand architecture. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.225.
elebija’s picturesque vision of the city and Pospišil’s complimentary views of
culturalandurbanpracticesofferedanidealisedimageoftheoldprecinct.Despite
Grabrijanhavingproducedhisownrecordof theprecinctand itsmonuments the
authors did not include those in their discussion.29 This would suggest that their
interestswerenotinestablishingaccuratehistoricalaccounts,butinidentifyingthis
fabric as sensual and charming, distant from the new city. Seeking to unlock the
mystiqueoftheOrient,GrabrijanandNeidhardtturnedtoasearchforarchitectural
spaces that they believed captured these qualities. They identified the traditional
OttomanhouseasatthecoreoftheintimatelifeofaMuslimmanand,assuch,a
buildingtypethatcouldpotentiallyprovideakeytounderstandingthe‘Orient’.
29Theyincludedanextensivecollectionofhistoricimages,sketchesandmeasureddrawingsintheirsubsequentbookArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernityGrabrijancollectedsomeofthoseimagesforhisclassesintheTechnicalSchoolinthelate1930s.
Chapter3
102
SearchingforOrientalsecrets
With no structured analysis of the public section of the old city and limited
reference to Grabrijan’s previous studies, the discussion of the old precinct in
‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’focusedontheprivatehome.Itstartedwithananalysis
ofanexternalenvelopeandpartsofthehomethatwererelativelyopentopublic
[Figure 10]. Through an interpretation of the house gained from the street and
mahala setting, the authors constructed a vision of domestic life. This imagined
interiorofferedtheauthorsaplatformforthediscussingwhattheyreferredtoas
theOrientalcharacterofthepeoplewhoinhabitedthosespaces,andthesecretsit
veiled.30
Figure 10: Muslim house, drawing. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.215.
Theywerecertainlynotthefirsttoidentifythedomesticspacesofhomeasakeyto
understanding the architectural and cultural context. The Muslim house and its
surrounds were topics frequently explored by foreign architects. Most significant
weretheAustro–HungarianarchitectswhointheirsearchforanauthenticBosnian,
30Theapproachwaspremiseduponstereotypical interpretationsof theOriental,whichpromotedtheoppositionalrelationshipbetweentheOrientandOccident,EastandWest.ForfurtherdiscussionseeE.W.Said,Orientalism,WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,PenguinBooks,London,1978,pp.1–28.
Chapter3
103
localandindigenousexpressionidentifiedthetraditionalhouseasanarchitectural
embodimentofthosequalities.31
The architect Josip Vancaš was officially the first to recognise the political and
aesthetic potential of Bosnian vernacular built forms, and in particular the
significance of the Ottoman traditional dwelling for a construction of Bosnian
identity.32 In 1911, Vancaš tabled to the Bosnian parliament (Zemaljski Sabor) a
heritage resolution that aimed to protect, register and describe existing
monuments,aswellas togive financial incentive (forexample, lowering taxes) to
the buildings built in what he referred to as ‘Bosnian style’.33 For this purpose
Vancaš designed a prototypical house in ‘Bosnian style’ [Figure 11]. He based his
designsontraditionalarchitecture,inparticularonthehomeofthewealthyperson
31 It was common for OttoWagner’s students to take their first journey to the East, where theynoted and sketched the beauty of the ‘original’, ‘natural’ and ‘pure’ architectural forms of the‘Mediterranean house’. Wagner’s firstrecorded student interested in studying local vernacular,ErnstLichtblau,uponhisarrivalinBosniain1904notedthe‘pure’qualitiesandrationalgroundingoftraditionaldwellings.(Asdiscussedinchaptertwo,thosequalitieswerealsoobservedbyGrabrijaninhis early writings on the city.) On his trip through the countryside Lichtblau produced numeroussketchesoftheBosnianlandscapeandhouses,emphasisingthegeometricsimplicityofformofthehouse.ErnstLichtblau‘StudienundSkizzenausBosnienundDalmatien’(StudiesandsketchesfromBosnia and Dalmatia), Der Architekt, 14, 1903, p. 85, cited in I. Krzovi, Arhitektura Bosne iHercegovine,1878–1918,(ArchitectureofBosniaandHerzegovina,18781918),UmjetnikaGalerijaBiH,Sarajevo,1988,p.231.Seealsochaptersix,‘Thesearchforanationalstyle’,inA.Moravanszky,Competing Visions: Aesthetic Invention and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture,1867–1918, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.,1997; and R. Besarovi, Iz kulturnog životau SarajevupodAustrougarskom Upravom (Inserts from Cultural Life of Sarajevo Under the Austro–HungarianAdministration),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1974.32 Josip Vancaš was born in Sopron, Hungary, in 1859 and died in Zagreb, Croatia, in 1932. Hecompleted his architectural degree in Vienna in 1881, and from 1882 to 1884 studied at theAcademy of Arts in Vienna. Vancaš’s first major commission in Sarajevo was the design of theCatholiccathedral.ArchitecturalhistorianNedžadKurtosuggeststhatintheirsearchforanarchitectto design the cathedral the authorities approached the government. Minister Kallay in turnapproached Friedrich von Schmidt, professor at the Academy of Applied arts in Vienna, whosuggestedhisstudent,aCroatiancalledJosipVancaš.Vancašwasonly25atthetime,andhesettledpermanently inSarajevo in1894.Duringhis fruitfulcareer inSarajevohedesignedmorethan240buildings, of which most were executed. He became one of the most prominent architects in theAustro–Hungarian personnel, in the city in which almost 600 projects were designed. For furtherdiscussionseeKurto,‘ArhitekturaSecesijeuSarajevu’,1988.33Kurto,ArhitekturaBosneIHercegovine,razvojBosanskogStila,p.298.
Chapter3
104
of Ottoman times.34 The design made reference to the spatial organisation of
Muslim houses, with divanhana (large, openplanned living spaces), recesses and
protrusions on the upper level, white walls and steep, high roofs. It also made
reference to public buildings suchas hotels (han). Other architects, among whom
JosipPospišilwas themostprominent,continuedtheseefforts.Pospišilmadethe
search for authentic Bosnian style the focus of his work, and saw domestic
architectureastheembodimentofculturalrelationships.
Figure11:JosipVancaš:housesdesignedin‘Bosnianstyle’.Source: I. Krzovi, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, 1878–1918,pp.232&235.
While Grabrijan and Neidhardt acknowledged the efforts of their predecessors,
including a version of Pospišil’s essay on the urban positioning of the traditional
34InatalktotheSocietyofYugoslavEngineersandArchitects(UdruženjejugoslavenskihinžinjeraIArhitekata–SekcijaZagreb)VancašcriticisedtheAustro–HungariangovernmentfortheinadequatesupportitprovidedtopreservingSarajevo’sheritagefabric.Hecriticisedtheauthoritiesforavoidingfinancialcommitmentgivingonlyverbalsupportforpreservation.Originalquote: ‘Veina kulturnih država imaveovakovih komisija,a Inaša ju je domovina dobilapodnaslovom‘PovjerenstvozaouvanjespomenikauKraljevinamaHrvatskojISlavoniji’.lanovisutekomisijemeuostalimadirectoruroSzaboIprof.ArhitektMartinPilar.Nažalost,tajekomisijakulturna institucija na papiru, jer ne raspolaže dovoljnim novanim sredstvima, da bi uzmoglapoduzimati potrebna nauna istraživaka putovanja, snimanja, crtanja I publikacije objekata,vrijednihzaštite’.J.Vancaš, ‘BosanskoNarodnoGraditeljstvo’ (Bosnianbuiltheritage),published inTehnikiList(TechnicalJournal),vol.31,no.24,December1928,pp.353–56.
Chapter3
105
house, they perceived the Austro–Hungarian efforts as ‘well meaning’.35 But they
argued that the Austro–Hungarian colonial obsession with the ‘exotic in Bosnian
architectural expression’ resulted in their failure ‘to understand things’.36 In an
attempt to rectify limited understandings of the significance of the traditional
house, they focused their discussion on the search for clues embedded in the
hidden interiors. Central to this was their assumption that a patriarchal and, by
extension, gender relationship between Muslim men and women underpinned
familyrelationships.
The idea of the Islamic home as a shell for daily activities, primarily for women,
stimulated their imaginations and promised insights into otherwise private
domains.37GrabrijanandNeidhardtwrote:
To a Muslim man a woman is his joy – and that is why he carefully hides and
enclosesher.Herdivanhana isenclosedbyamesh,andmušepci [timber lattices]
framed the best views of the garden for her … Through women, a Muslim man
divides the world into a colourful and intimate interior world and a sober and
constrainedpublicworld.38
35Originalquote:‘Nesmijemopoiniputem,kojijepošlabivšaAustrija,putemdobronamjernim,alibezpravogshvaanjastvari.Austrijskiarhitektividjeli suuBosni samoegzotiku,pasumislili,daeBosnuusreitiegzotinimgradnjamaumaurskomsloguInekojkolonijalnojarhitekturi.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.241.36Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.241.37 For further discussion of the Islamic home as a shell for daily activities and other ‘lessons’ formodernarchitectureandurbanism,whicharchitectssuchasLeCorbusierfoundinAlgiers,seeÇelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,AlgiersUnderFrenchRule.Forafurtherdiscussionofthesignificance of the indigenous house in broader modernist discourses see Z. Çelik, Displaying theOrient, Architecture of Islam at NineteenthCentury World’s Fairs, University of California Press,Berkeley,1992,pp.87–113.38Originalquote:‘Muslimanuježenaužitak–pajezbogtogatolikoljubomornouvaIzatvara.Zbognjedivanhanaumrežama,mušepci,zanjunajljepšiInajbiranijividiciiizglediuprirode.Ovakomožemuslimanuzetiodtogasvijetasve,štogodmugodi,adaganištaneometaunjegovu–eifu.…Kroznju je musliman podijelio svijet na dva dijela: šareno intimni i trijezno suzdržljivi javni život.’
Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.Twodifferentspellingsappearinthistext:divhanaanddivanhana.
Chapter3
106
Believing the private space of the home reflected the broader social and gender
relationships in which they were interested, the authors centred their analysis on
architectural elements that enclosed domestic life. As this interrelationship took
place within the Muslim home, understanding spatial qualities was assumed to
provide insights into interpersonal interactions: ‘It’s through his relationship to
women that the Muslim defines [his] world’, they suggested. Identifying sexual
dynamicsasatthecoreofgenderinteractionwithinaMuslimfamily,andawoman
asthemain‘subjectthatisalwayssame’,theywrote:39
A woman is for a Muslim man a piece of paradise on Earth. Because of her he
accumulates all the wealth around her. The Oriental carpet, ilim, is [spread] for
her, the embroidered towels and cushions [also] for her, the water fountains,
šadrvans,andgardensofEden–allforher.40
‘In that world’, wrote Grabrijan and Neidhardt, ‘Muslim man finds his joy and
pleasure merak without anything disturbing his mood eif’.41 By associating the
domesticinterioranditsoccupantswithmerak–afeelingofirrationalandleisurely
joyandpleasure–andeif–moodortemperamentalbehaviour–theypresented
the house as a spatial enclosure of the emotional, if somehow unpredictable,
Muslimworld.
AbandoningGrabrijan’searlierwritingsontheintimacyandeasebywhichBosnian
Muslimscreatedandenjoyedthedomesticenvironment,theauthorspresentedthe
39Originalquote:‘Subjektostajeuvijekisti,mijenjasesamoobjekat,pajemrežaprematomeuvijekdrugaija.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.40Originalquote:‘Muslimanusuobeananebesasahurijama,t.j.zamamnimženama.ZbognjeIokonjenagomilavaonsvebogatstvo.ilimi–radinje,peškiriIurešenijastuci–radinje,šadrvaniirajskebaše – sve radi nje. U tom se svijetu musliman nasladjuje t.j. predaje svom eifu.’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.41Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.
Chapter3
107
house’s austere public elevations as reflective of what they perceived as the
controllingnatureofMuslimmenoverwomen.Usingananalogyofthe intriguing
nature of cover, the authors suggested that in relation to the house, ‘fences and
variousotherscreenlikestructures’hidetheinteriorsjustlike‘Justliketheveilthat
reduce[d] a [woman’s] appearance to a neutral shape’ [Figure 12].42 Opening up
thoselayersofprivacy,likeunveilingawoman,wouldprovidetheinsightneededby
the authors to understand the hidden qualities of house. These findings, in turn,
providedtheconceptualstructurefortheirmasterplanpresentedin‘Sarajevoand
ItsSatellites’.
Figure12:TheOrientasinspiration.Facecoverandveil,(zarandvala). Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevoand itsSatellites’,pp.212&213.
The discussion of Bašaršija’s business section, as stated earlier, did not focus on
thehistoricaldevelopmentortheimportanceofspecificmonumentstothearea’s
overall fabric. Instead it considered the precinct’s relevance to the new urban
42Originalquote:‘Ženumuslimannepuštausvijetbezvalet.j.kopreneispredlica,kojajeimunizirapredjavnošu,bezzarat.j.ogrtaa,kojisveženesvodinaistitrijezni,monumentalnioblik,ItimeihsveizjednaujeIneutralizira.TheEnglishtranslationinfull:‘TheMuslimmandoesnotlethiswomengooutonthestreetwithoutacover.Thatwayhereducesherappearancetoageneralshapethatpresents all women within the same monumental form, making them all same and neutral.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.
Chapter3
108
development. Like their mentor Le Corbusier, Grabrijan and Neidhardt identified
theexplorationofthereligiouspracticesasakeytounderstandingtheprivateand
spirituallifeofthecity.Theyfocusedtheirattentiononwhattheysawasreligious
normsthathadshapedthedevelopmentoftheurbanfabric.Theassumptionthat
Islamic faith subsumed all other forms of sociocultural norms governed their
analysis; the ‘artistic physiognomy of Sarajevo’, they wrote, was determined by
religiousbeliefs.43
Aheadofmanyothertowns,Sarajevohasaspecialdispositionforarchitecture.And
thatspecificallycomesfromIslam.Islamforbidsfiguralrepresentation,andthrough
that discourages sculpture and paintings as art forms, ultimately Islamic art is
focusedonabstraction;i.e.,inornamentinsteadofpainting,inarchitectureinstead
ofsculpture.44
Unawareof thediversitywithinMuslim faith, theirdiscussionof the impact Islam
made on Sarajevo referenced a drawing of the mosque in Medina (now in Saudi
Arabia). The burial place of Muhammad, Medina represented the epicentre of
Islamic religion [Figure 13].45 Recalling Le Corbusier’s reference to Kaaba, the
inclusionofthissketchhighlightedtheauthors’belief intheoverarchingpowerof
Islamtonegate regionaldiversities.ThereferencevisualisedSerbianandCroatian
nationalists’argumentthatsuggested,duetothetransnationalnatureofIslam,that
Bosnian Muslims’ allegiance was not to the local population but to the greater
43Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.227.44 Original quote: ‘Ispred svih drugih gradova Sarajevo ima posebno dispoziciju za arhitekturu. TospecijalnoproizlaziizIslama.IslamskanaukanaimezabranjujeprikazivanjeprirodnihuzoraIlikovauumjetnosti. Na taj nain onemoguuje razvoj slikarstva I kiparstva, pa se islamski svijet timintenzivnije iživljava u apstrakciji t.j. u ornamentici umjesto u slikarstvu, u arhitekturi umjesto ukiparstvu’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.227.45MuslimsreverethecityofMeccaforcontainingtheMasjidalHaram(SacredMosque),consideredthe holiest site of Islam. Medina is the second holiest city in Islam. The city is the burial place ofMuhammadandtheplacewhereheandhisfollowersfledafterbeingexpelledfromattacksagainstMecca,nowknownastheHijira.BothMeccaandMedinaarelocatedinwhatisnowSaudiArabia.
Chapter3
109
world of Islam. Based on that rationale, the nationalists argued, Bosnian Muslims
possessednosenseofnationalorregionalbelonging.
Figure13:Medinamosque.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, p. 210. [Image republished inArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity].
ThegeneralisedandstereotypicalviewsofIslamicartandarchitecturethatframed
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussionofBašaršijapervadedtheirperceptionofthe
local population. Despite the precinct’s historic inclusiveness of diverse religious
beliefs,thediscussionpresentedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’focusedonMuslims,
whose values, the authors argued, were in opposition to Western society’s.
‘Western man’, they argued, approached ‘art rationally’, considering it ‘an
intellectualactivity’.46Thisapproachthatcelebrated ‘technology’, theycontinued,
46 Original quote: ‘Zapadnjak pristupa likovnoj umjetnosti nekako posredno: ona mu je delekcijaintelekta:razumijeje.OdatleenambitishvatljivaIglorifikacijatehnikenazapaduIpojavaulikovnojumjetnostikakvajenaprimjerkonstruktivizam.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.211.
Chapter3
110
providedthecontext‘fortheemergenceofartsuchasconstructivism’.47Suggesting
thatthisrelationshipisevidentinthebuiltfabric,theywrote:
When I look at the supporting arches of the gothic cathedral, I am immediately
aware that without them the building would fall down, or that the spaces of the
gothic cathedral would be impossible without them. When I look at the thin
columns of concrete structure that support large concrete volumes – I can see a
workofengineering.Andthedomeandcube–theyallhaveacleargeometry.48
Unlike ‘his’ Western counterparts, ‘Eastern man’, according to the authors, ‘was
different’ and ‘engage[d] in art directly, approaching everything, including
technology,withemotion’.49Theevidenceofthistheyfoundonthebuiltfabricof
Bašaršija:
Arabesque I am never able to decipher – even though it is all interwoven with
geometry.Andtheserollersandarches,conesandcalottes,evencubesarenever
clearly determined – they always vary, going up and down – always appearing
differentlyinregardstotheirposition.50
Supportingtheirstatementwereimagesofarabesquesandwritingspresumablyin
Arabic [Figure 14]. The level of abstractness presented in the drawing neutralised
the meaning of the image, highlighting the problematic relationship between art
andreligionevidentinGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussion.
47Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.211.48 Original quote: ‘Kad god pogledam potporne lukove na obodima gotske katedrale, osjeamodmah, da bi se bez njih zgrada srušila ili da je bez njih nemogu prostor gotskog profila. A kadpogledam tanko armirane betonske stupove, koji nose glomazne gradjevne mase – onda uvijekmislimnainžinjeraInjegovustatiku.IkupolaIkubussvesutoodredjenegeometrijsketvorbe.AlinaOrijentunijetako!’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.210.49Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.211.50Originalquote‘Arabeskunemogunikadaodgonetnutipremdajesvaisprepletenageometrijom.Iovivaljci,Ilukovi,injeviIkalote,pakubusi,nikadaminisukonanoodredjeni–uvijekonivarirajunaviše ilinaniže–svakiputdrugaijipremasvompoložaju’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.210.
Chapter3
111
Figure 14: Sketch of an arabesque. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.
TheimpactofLeCorbusier’sviews
For Neidhardt at least, this interest in the Oriental can be explained by his time
spentinLeCorbusier’soffice.ArchitecturalhistorianZeynepÇelikhasarguedthatin
projectssuchasAlgiers,LeCorbusiershowedagenuine,ifbiased, interest inlocal
culture.51DefiningtheEastasemotional,irrational,ahistoricalandtimeless,andthe
Westasrational,progressiveanddynamic,LeCorbusierestablishedanoppositional
relationshipbetweenOrientandOccident.52HisobservationsoftheEastconformed
towhatEdwardSaidhasreferredtoasanOrientalistconstructionoftheOther.
InspiredbyFoucault’sArchaeologyofKnowledgeandDisciplineandPunish,Saidhas
argued that the Orient was a virtually European invention, a system of
representation framedbyWesternpoliticalpower.53Hedefined ‘Orientalism’asa
mode of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction
51 For a discussion on Le Corbusier’s work during this period see: M. McLeod, ‘Le Corbusier andAlgiers’, Oppositions, 19/20, winter/spring 1980, pp. 53–85; and Çelik, Urban Forms and ColonialConfrontations.MaryMcLeodarguesthatLeCorbusier’sinvolvementwiththesyndicalistmovementsignificantly informed his approach to urban studies and subsequent proposals for Algeria in theyears1931to1942.52Z.Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.53 Said acknowledged his debt to Foucault, particularly hisArchaeology of Knowledge, Routledge,London, 1989, c1972 andDiscipline and Punish Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1979. E. Said,Orientalism,WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,pp.3–4.
Chapter3
112
between ‘the Orient’ and ‘the Occident’. In Europe from the 18th century on,
Orientalist thinking underpinned understandings of the East–West relationship.54
Said’s thesis has provided a framework through which the work of many modern
architects,includingLeCorbusier,hasbeencritiqued.55
In the article ‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, Çelik further demonstrates
that Le Corbusier’s engagement with the Orient was heavily informed by such
biases. He accepts models of the Orient promoted through literature, travel
accountsandpaintings.56PopularauthorssuchasThéophileGautierandPierreLoti
shaped Le Corbusier’s expectations of the places he studied.57 The impact of the
Orientalist tradition fuelled his desire to confirm, on location, his preconceived
mental images of places encountered through literature.58 Çelik suggests that Le
Corbusier’sdesiretoreconstructaperceptionofIstanbulpromotedin19thcentury
travelbooksframedhisownexperienceofthecity.59
Building upon Europe’s historic fascination with Islam, Le Corbusier attempted to
explainarchitecturalandurban form in termsof religiousbelief. Inanattempt to
enrich his own architectural approach, he saw the oppositional relationship as
having thepotential to unite the ‘sensual’heassociatedwith theEastandOrient
withthe‘rational’oftheWest.DefiningthelocalandIslamassomethingOtherto
54Said,Orientalism,WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,p.40.55Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’.56Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.57Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.58Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.59Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.
Chapter3
113
theWest(morespecificallyFrench,ÇelikarguedinthecaseofAlgiers),LeCorbusier
labelled localcultureasdifferent,andbyextension inferior.60Unversed inMuslim
philosophy, Le Corbusier, Çelik argues, often recycled clichéd views of religion’s
importance in structuring social and cultural formations.61 To demonstrate the
overarching role of religion in shaping urban form, Le Corbusier – in a way
prefiguringGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sefforts inSarajevo–referredtoKaabainhis
discussionofthe‘unityofreligionasexpressedinthephysicalandsymbolic’formof
Istanbul.62
Unlike Le Corbusier, who in his attempts to gain knowledge of other places and
cultures relied on secondary sources and French colonial policies, Grabrijan and
Neidhardtwereintheorymuchclosertotheirsubjectofinvestigation.Bosniawas
anintegralpartoftheirhomestate,theKingdomofYugoslavia.Thekingdom’smain
policies and constitution were defined in relation to the Ottomans’ colonial
occupationoftheBalkans,fromthe15thtothe19thcentury.WhiletheOttomans
60 Çelik, ‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, pp. 59–77. In contrast, scholars such as SibelBozdogan have attempted to liberate Le Corbusier from what they describe as themisunderstandingsoftheOrientalistapproach,arguinginsteadforgenuine,ifattimesproblematic,interest in the local context. The Journal of Architectural Education recorded a debate betweenRichard Ingersoll and Sibel Bozdogan. Bozdogan, attempted to distance Le Corbusier from the‘Orientalistsin’byarguingthathisinvolvedandengagedrepresentationoftheOrientwasacriticalandexploratoryvehicleratherthananaffirmativeandexpositoryone.SeeS.Bozdogan,‘JourneytotheEast:waysoflookingattheOrientandthequestionofrepresentation’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation, vol. 41, no. 4, summer 1988, pp. 38–45. However, Ingersoll questioned Bozdogan’sargumentand insisted that LeCorbusier indeed ‘proved inevery instance tobeon the sideof hiswhitefathers’.SeeR.Ingersoll,‘Lettertotheeditor’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation,vol.42,no.4,1989,p.61.SubsequentlyBozdoganrespondedin,‘MoreonLeCorbusier’sOrientalism’,JournalofArchitectural Education, vol. 43, no. 1, fall 1989, p. 63. Ingersoll and, by extension, Çelik havepersisted in stating that Le Corbusier’s experience of the East, which accepted the Orientalistframework,wasaimedatextollinghisownculture.Unwillingtogiveawayhispositionofpower,LeCorbusier, among others, was thus almost inevitably associated with what Ingersoll called the‘originalsin’ofWesterners.61Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.62Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,p.63.
Chapter3
114
never reached Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s home towns of Lož and Zagreb,
respectively,theirlegacywasfeltwidelyandformedastrongpartofthehistoryof
allSouthernSlavs.However, inGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sexplorationof thecity’s
culturalcontext,theyneveracknowledgedtheirrelativeclosenesstotheirsubject,
if it ever existed. If anything, their approach confirmed that their Slovenian and
Croatian Christian backgrounds excluded them from the Islamic cultural and
religiousmilieuofSarajevo.Inanarticlepublishedin1940,Grabrijanacknowledged
thedifficulties theyhadaccessing the interiorsofMuslim homes: ‘Muslimhouses
aretooenclosedtoallowfreeobservationsandtodrawconclusionsfromthem.’63
Unfazedbythelackofaccess,theyidentifiedanalternativeapproach‘viathestudy
ofMuslimpublicbuildings:hans[inns]andcoffeeshops’.64Theirsenseofexclusion
coupledwith theirpreconceptionsabout Islamdeterminedtheirunderstandingof
the Oriental within the Bosnian context. Their observations of local culture
presented in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ were framed by an inquiry into social
norms, particularly religious and sexual norms – the realms that Çelik has argued
definedLeCorbusier’sOrientalistapproach.65
63Originalquote:‘Muslimanskekuesunamsuvišezatvorene,adabismomoglinanjimapastisvojeoi I stvaratinekezakljuke. Donjih treba doi I indirektnimputem, tj.prekomuslimanskih javnihzgrada: hanova I kafana.’ Published in ‘Bašaršija – jedna nova alternativa’ (‘Bašaršija – a newalternative’), Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, vol. 30, no. 6, 1940; republished in eli, Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.67.64eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.67.65ÇelikreferstoworkofhistorianNormanDaniel,whichidentifiedenquiryintosocialnormssuchasreligious, sexual and power as the three realms that have characterised Islam in Europeandiscourses.Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,p.60.
Chapter3
115
Bašaršija:‘surgeryormedication’
DespitetheinterestinlocalcontextexpressedinGrabrijan’swritings,‘Sarajevoand
Its Satellites’ revealed the historic precinct was given very limited value in their
masterplan.InkeepingwiththeirproblematicreadingoftheOrientalnatureofthe
oldcityanditsinhabitants,theEast–WestArterybypassedtheBašaršijaprecinct,
compoundingitsisolation.Ahighwalloflargerstructureswasproposedtoredefine
theouterperimeteroftheareaandtoenhanceitsseparationfromtherestofthe
city. To support the rezoning (from city centre to marketplace), an improved
internal street network was proposed. This was to facilitate the newly projected
image of the precinct as a tourist centre with ‘bazaars’ that produced ‘bijouterie
[imitationjewellery]’.66
In contrast to Grabrijan’s earlier attempts to establish an argument of relevance,
heretheyhighlightedtheartificialnatureoftheprecinct.‘Inrelationtotoday’slife’,
theywrote,Bašaršijahadnovalue:
[Itsbuilt fabric] is likeastage setwherenothing is real.Theprecinct’spurpose is
unclearanditsexistenceisirrelevant.Withnootherpurposethantohidethelack
ofcontentbehindthesurface;theornaments[andarabesque]haveonlysuperficial
meaning. Their purpose is to cover up the poor quality and the absence of
relevance.It isall falseanddeceptive. Ithasall lost itspurpose.Bašaršija, is[not
real]buta‘mirage’.67
66TheMerriamWebsterOnlineDictionarydefinesbijouterieasacollectionoftrinkets,ornamentsorjewels; and also decoration. In SerboCroatian and Bosnian the word implies imitation, and, byextension,lowqualityandcheapdesign.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.203.67Originalquote:‘DanašnjaBašaršijajepremaživotukaoapstrakcijapremarealizmu,t.j.kuliserija,gdjejesveneopipljivo.SvisutiodnosinejasniIzbogtoganesolidni.Svakiornamenttuzastirenešto,štonijerealno.Svrhajetihšara,dazavaraju,Idaprikrijuslabukvalitetu.Lažanjetajornament,jerjeizgubiosvojunužnost,svojupotrebaIsvojusmisaoIpoštosetolikoudaljioodsvojihizvora,danema
Chapter3
116
In the final analysis, the precinct’s existing fabric had little to offer to their new
masterplan:‘IfthepurposeofgoingtoBašaršijaistodohistoricalresearch’,they
argued, ‘then something should be learnt’.68 ‘But if the idea is to search for new
ideas’, there was ‘nothing new to be found…’69 Reducing Bašaršija to little more
than a twodimensional backdrop or a ‘scenographic display’, the master plan
focused on the new city.70 The discussion of the old precinct’s future, labelled
‘surgeryormedication’,wasconcludedwiththestatement‘Bašaršijaisdead’.71In
adamningassessmentofthebuiltfabric’scondition,theauthorsstated,‘Wherever
you look into theavlija [courtyards]–everythingstinksofdirtand rot,andmany
pestsarewalkingaround,eveninbroaddaylight’.72
Incontrastwiththis,theauthorsassociatedthenewcitywiththeterms‘efficiency’,
‘circulation’and‘standardisation’,demonstratingthattheirbelief inarationaland
pragmaticapproachalignedwiththemodern.Presentingthemselvesasresponsible
socialscientists,notsimplyarchitectsactinguponaestheticideas,theyarguedthat
theexpertswouldconfirmtheiranalysisoftheoldprecinct.Callinguponeducated
snjimapraveveze.SvataBašaršija,kojasenatimšarama,jestekaoneka‘fatamorgana’’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.68Originalquoteinfull:‘Ukolikoseidezaotkrivanjemostatakastaretradicije,možeseneštonauitiuBašaršiji.Alineštoidejnonovosetunemožeotkriti.TužnosevraaizBašaršijeonajkojijepošaoda nešto nova vidi I naui, jer sve što tu vidi, mogao je pregledati za prvih 14 dana.’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.69Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.70Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.71Originalquote:‘Bašaršijajeumrlakaocity.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.255. Original quote: ‘Kirurgija ili medicina. Kucnuo je dvanaesti as – treba pristupiti regulacijiSarajeva’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.72Originalquote:‘Adanegovorimooneodrživimhigijenskimprilikama.Gdjegodzaviriteuavliju–svudazaudarapoplijesniIgnjiloi,amnožinanonihživotinjicaIposredbijeladanaplazipozemlji’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.256.
Chapter3
117
professionals who lived or worked in the precinct to support their views, they
wrote:
If we consult doctors, fireman, insurance experts, or tradespeople and
businesspeople who live in Bašaršija, they will all agree about the unbearable
conditions that are present there ... Today’s Bašaršija is like sick lungs, full of
cavities. There are empty holes left from the burned downhans, courtyards and
ruinsofallkindsofbathsandresidencesthat shouldno longerhaveanyplace in
thisbazaar.73
Withlimitedprospectsfortheprecinct’sreintegrationinthenewcity,theauthors
statedthat‘anyattempttorevitaliseBašaršijaandincludeitinthenewcitywould
be contrary to natural development’.74 Their ‘diagnosis’ – a term they used to
presenttheirconclusions–wastosurgicallyremovetheoffendingelementsofthe
old city. ‘Summarising’ the position of Bašaršija within the master plan, they
stated:
… we realise that medication cannot help here any longer. Trying to heal the
existingsituationbycorrecting,repairing,mendingand filling in theemptyplaces
wouldonlyresult inahalfmendedandweaksolution.Here,surgical intervention
can help, i.e., the demolition of deteriorating and weak structures, followed by
zoning. A zone of highrise buildings surround the precinct of aršija [Bašaršija]
fromoutside–azoneoflowstructuresmakingtheinnercircle,tobefollowedbya
zoneofoldculturalbuildings,allfinallyunifiedbyapark!75
73Originalquote:‘DanašnjaBašaršijanaliibolesnimpluimakojasupunakaverna.Tusupraznineod pogorjelih hanova, pa razna dvorišta I ruševine kojekavih kupališta I stanbenih kua, kojima uovakvombazarunijemjesto.NatajnacindanašnjaBašaršijanijeskoroninapolovicuiskorištenazatrgovakesvrhe!’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.256.74Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.255.75 Original quote: ‘Ako sve rezimiramo, dolazimo do uvjerenja, da tu lijekovi više ne pomažu.Lijeenjepostojeegstanjaispravljanjem,opravljanjem,krpanjem,Iispunjavanjamporušenihmjesta,dalo bi samo iskrpanu polovinu I slabu stvar. Pomoi može tu samo kirurski zahvat, t.j. Rušenjesvega trošnog I nevaljalog, pa onda sprovesti urbanizaciju, t.j. podjelu u zone. Zona sa podrujemvisokihgradjevinadošlabiokoaršije,zonaniskihgradjevinaIbazaraunutarovezatimzonastarih
Chapter3
118
Theproposalsuggestedtheclearanceofallbutthemost‘importantbuildingsbuilt
of solidmaterial’ [Figure15].76Thecomplexof theGaziHusrefBeg, inclusiveofa
mosque, a šadrvan (water fountain), two turbes (mausoleums, tombs of the
founder and his family) and a kutubhana (library) were to be kept.77 Two other
mosques, Bašaršija and Careva (Tsar’s) mosques, would also stay, as would the
nearby medresa (religious school). Basing their judgment on the quality of the
physical fabric,GrabrijanandNeidhardthesitated in includingtheMoriaHan(an
inn),asthestructurewas‘partiallybuiltoutoftimber’.78Ultimatelytheysuggested
retaining it, but on the condition ‘all remnants of the past’ that surrounded the
buildingwerecleared.79
Figure 15: Design proposal for urban regulation ofBašaršija.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.
Theproposal,howeverhypothetical,extendedthealreadydiminishingcapacityof
thefinancialinstitutionssupportingBašaršija’surbandevelopment,andthevakuf
kulturnih gradjevina te park, koji bi povezao sve navedene elemente u cjelinu!’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.76Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.77 There have been two spellings used for this name: Gazi Husref Beg and Gazi Husrevbeg.Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf (comp.), Spomenica Gazi Husrevbegove etiristoGodišnjice’ (Four HundredYearsofGazihusrevbeg’sVakuf),Sarajevo,1932,p.57.78Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.79Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.
Chapter3
119
inparticular.Witha limited interest inprotectionandpreservationof theexisting
structures, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s master plan proposed significant clearing of
architecturalfabricdeemedinpoorphysicalcondition.
UnlikeGrabrijan’searlierwritings,whichchallengedtheauthoritiesandcalledfora
review of preservation policies and urban development approaches, the master
plan complied with the official line. It too, proposed preservation of individual
monuments,butnotthesurroundingfabric.Thesurroundingstructureslackedthe
capacity to generate income needed for preserving monuments, and so the
proposalunderminedtheinterdependencyoftheBašaršija’sbuiltfabricinstilledin
the principles the vakuf institution. Further, the Bašaršija’s proposed change of
role – from an economic, cultural and trade centre into a retail zone of ‘bazaar
bijouterie’–confirmedGrabrijanandNeidhardt’slackofbeliefinrevivingtheailing
fabric and economy. The plan’s overall focus on modernisation, efficiency and
rational planning of the city at large, demonstrated that their interest in urban
planningwasinthedevelopmentofnewsatellitetowns–nottheoldtown.
Thenewsatelliteminingtowns
Asstated,theproposalsin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’emergedfromGrabrijanand
Neidhardt’s interest in urban debates.80 However, the projects included in the
publicationwerecommonlyactualprojectsorcompetitionsinwhichNeidhardtwas
involvedasanarchitect.WhenhecametoBosniain1939,afteryearsofworkingin
Western Europe, he did so to become company architect in the mining 80Between1939and1942Neidhardtwasemployedfulltimebythe‘Jugoelik’steelcompany.
Chapter3
120
conglomerate Croatian Mines and Steel Production (HRUDAT), a successor of the
GermanbackedironandsteelcompanyYugoslavSteel(Jugoelik).81From1939till
1942 Neidhardt worked on numerous proposals for the development of mining
towns.TheyincludedlargeurbanplansfortheMiddleBosnianbasin,masterplans
for the townsofZenica,VarešMajdan,Ljubija,Breza,Podbrežje, Ilijaš,Zenicaand
Ilijaš,anddesignproposalsforworkers’housing[Figure16].82
81JelicaKarliKapetanovisuggestsanumberofreasonsforNeidhardt’sarrivalinBosnia,themainonebeinghisneedtoobtainasecurejobandcommissions.Inaddition,hiswifewasBosnianandhisclose friendGrabrijanwas living inBosnia.Soonafter itopened in1937, Jugoelikbecameastateenterprise.ThecompanywasoneofthelargestintheIndependentStateofCroatia(NDH).Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,p.180.Upon its creation the NDH took over some sections of the company. The takeover included allbranchesinBosnia,includingBreza,Zenica,LjubijaiVareš,consideredinGrabrijanandNeidhardt’surbanproposal.TheproductionchangedthenametoHRUTATd.d.anacronymforCroatianminesandsteelproduction(Hrvatskirudnici Italionice).I.Mamuzovi,‘Croatianmetallurgy,past,presentandfuture’,Metalurgija,43,1,2004,pp.3–12;alsoat:http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf82SomehousesinIlijašwerebuiltin1942.TheproposalswerepresentedinGrabrijan&Neidhardt,‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, pp. 273–322; most of the housing projects were presented again inGrabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity. Insomeinstances,suchasthedesignofNeidhardt’sworkers’housing,bothpublicationspresentedthesameprojectinorder to support the respective urban visions. In ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ the housing projectsrepresentedthepowerofrationalplanandefficiency,whileinArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity they were proof of the socialist government’s efforts to accommodate theproletariat.
Chapter3
121
Figure16:Mapofsatellitetowns included intheproposal.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevoand itsSatellites’,p.274.
Neidhardt saw developing mining towns not in relation to the relatively limited
scope of the architectural task, but within the broader context of Yugoslav social
andpoliticalchanges.JugoelikwasestablishedamidYugoslavPrimeMinisterMilan
Stojadinovi’sbroadereffortstorevitalisethestateeconomy.83TheGermanbacked
ironandsteel complex at Zenica was expected to transform the region into a
‘Yugoslav Ruhr’,84 and Neidhardt’s design proposals for the towns aimed to
establishaconnectionbetweenurbanplanningandsocialchange.
83Facedwithseriouspoliticalchallenges,Stojadinovisoughttocombatdecliningagriculturalpricesby increasing industrial and processed agricultural exports to Germany. Lampe, Yugoslavia asHistory,p.180.84Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.180.
Chapter3
122
ForNeidhardt,urbanismwasbasedonaconnectionwiththelandandthenatural
environment, and with regional industry. While this model did not recognise the
specificsofcultureandhistoryassignificant, itexpecteddramaticsocioeconomic
changeswouldunderpintheurbanchanges.Theproposalfortheminingtownsof
theBosnianbasinwas thuspremisedonrezoning land ‘toachieveorganisedand
regularblocksofacontemporarycity’.85
While this grandiose gesture was in some ways reminiscent of aspects of Le
Corbusier’s urbanisation of Algiers and the desire for ‘a spontaneous and total
symbiosisofman,architectureandthelandscape’withinthecontextofBosnia,the
proposal to ‘expropriate’ the land and introduce new subdivisions demonstrated
the limitations of Neidhardt’s political awareness and knowledge of local
conditions.86Theissueoflandrightsanddivisionscutdeepintotheexistingdebate
on land ownerships.87 The problem was a vestige of Ottoman feudalism and the
practiceofdistributingarablelandalongreligiouslines.88Upontheintroductionof
Ottoman governance, the feudal estate holders could beChristian or Muslim, but
duetoalongprocessofreligiousandsocialpolarisation,bythe19thcentury‘allthe
big landowners were Muslims and the great majority of the nonlandowning
85Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.86 McLeod has argued that Le Corbusier’s new social and political commitment to the regionalsyndicalisminevidentinthesixprojectsthathedevelopedforAlgiersintheperiodbetween1932and1942.McLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,pp.333–63,withthereferencetothesyndicalistmovement,p.342.87 Original quote: ‘U interesu je cjelokupnosti, da se u gradu provede komasacija’. Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.88ForfurtherdiscussionseeI.Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,Origins,History,Politics,CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,1984.
Chapter3
123
peasants were Christians’.89 Thesehistorical conditions made land distribution or
the ‘agrarian question’ one of the central Yugoslav political dilemmas, which, as
historian Ivo Banac has stated, ‘could be solved only at the expense of one
confessionalcommunity’–theMuslimcommunity.90
IndeedthepostOttomangovernmentsofAustro–HungarianEmpireandYugoslavia
did attempt to address the agrarian question. The full complexities of these
attempts,however,arebeyondthescopeofthisthesis.91Sufficetosay,theAustro–
Hungarian government realised that taking the land away from the Muslim
landlords would further deepen the ideological divide between Muslims and
Christians, and undermine its political agenda. The possibility of this outcome
prevented the government undertaking the reforms. According to the land
ownership census of 1910, Muslims, at that time, made up 91.15 per cent of
landlords, their lands tilledbycustomary tenants (thecommonnative termkmet,
usuallytranslatesas‘serf’).Some73.92percentofkmetswereOrthodoxand21.49
percentCatholic.92 In1919, theKingdomofSerbs,CroatsandSlovenesabolished
serfdom,decreeingserffamiliesshouldbegivenlegaltitletothelandtheyworked,
promptingamajorpoliticalshiftintheBosnianMuslimcommunity.93Roughly4000
89Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.94.90Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,p.367.91ForathoroughdiscussionofthoseissuesseeBanac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia.92Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,p.367.93Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.164.
Chapter3
124
Muslim landowning families were affected by this reform, some were reduced to
poverty.94
It appears that Neidhardt was aware of the problems associated with land
ownership,andsawgovernment intervention ‘totheadvantageofall’andcentral
toitsresolution.95But it isunclearwhetherheconsideredtheethnicandreligious
background of the landholders or of the housing project users as relevant to his
design deliberations. The discussion of the proposals suggested that the projects
weredesignedfor‘thenontraditionalworker,notaproletarianbutapeasantwho
left his village, following the metamorphosis from working on the land to going
underground’.96 In the lightof theagrarian reformsof thisperiod, itwaspossible
that Neidhardt was designing for a Muslim population who, depleted of political
andeconomicpower,couldmoveintothenewlydesignedtowns.WhileNeidhardt
didnotspecifytheethnicityoftheproposedusersofthehousingproject,repeated
references to the traditional ‘Turkish’ house suggest a keen interest in reminding
housinginhabitantsofBosnia’sIslamicpast.However,thechurchproposedforthe
middle of Ljubija’s town square reinforced the presence of the Christian Croatian
governmentoftheIndependentStateofCroatia[Figure17].
94The‘agrarianissue’polarisedtheYugoslavpoliticalscene.MehmedSpaho,theleaderofYugoslavMuslimOrganisation, foughthardtosoftentheblowofagrarianreformsonMuslim landlordsandensure their compensation. Spaho’s commitment to this issue allowed his critics to denounce hispartyasrepresentativeofoldfeudalclass.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.164.95 Original quote: ‘U interesu je cjelokupnosti, da se u gradu provede komasacija’. Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.96Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.282.
Chapter3
125
Figure 17: Urban development of Ljubija, with a newlydesigned church located in the centre of town. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.280.
Neidhardt’s concerns for hygiene and workers’ health further neutralised the
politicaldimensionoftheproposal.Thoseissuesinformedtheurbanorganisationof
the plan, and in many instances brought forward the introduction of sporting
facilitiesandextensiverecreationalspace.Ultimately,byassumingresponsibilityfor
improving housing conditions for mining workers Neidhardt was able to focus his
attentiononthelesspoliticisedissueofindividualdwellingdesign.
Individualhouses:modernhouseswithOrientalparts
AkeycomponentofNeidhardt’sproposalforindividualhousingintheminingtowns
was this modern focus on health and hygiene: ‘Instead of looking like army
barracks’, he wrote, the new residential complexes ‘should be more like
sanatoriums correctly positioned in orientation to the sun and wind’.97 It was
assumed that hygienic living conditions, light and an organised way of life would
97SomehousesinIlijašwerebuiltin1942.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.289.
Chapter3
126
‘ensure the bodily and physical health’ of workers, while bringing them ‘closer to
theWesternEuropeanwayoflife’.98
It was in the design of workers’ housing that reference to the traditional house
began to be included. In response to a brief that called for collective housing for
almost160singlemenworkinginthetownofZenica,Neidhardtsuggestedthatthe
‘principles’ of oriental architecture would allow Bosnia to be connected to the
progressiveworldwhileretainingitsculturalintegrity.Withoutaccess,asforeigners
andnonMuslims,totheinteriorsofMuslimhomes,GrabrijanandNeidhardtbased
theirconclusionsonobservationsandinterpretationsofdailylifefromtheoutside.
TheyacknowledgedtheirlackofaccesstoMuslims’privatedomainsandsoughtto
understand the spatial interrelationships through analysis of what they perceived
were the like spaces ofhans.99 While this acceptance of the ‘old’ informing new
architecturemarkedasignificantadjustmentinNeidhardt’sarchitecturalapproach,
italsohighlightedtheauthors’relianceonvisualcuesandformalanalysis.
In architectural terms, Neidhardt conceived of the workers housing as comprising
individualspacemakingelementsandenclosures.Theseweresignificantlydefined
bymeshesandshadingdevices,sittingelementsandstairs– thesame ‘elements’
alreadydescribedbytheauthorsastheprimaryenclosuresofthe‘Oriental’family
home.Still,thediscussionsupportingtheproposalisvoidofreferencestotheorigin
ofthose‘elements’.Thestairs(basamci),thesemienclosedspaces(divanhana)and
98Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.282.99 In the article ‘Le Corbusier and Sarajevo’ Grabrijan stated that it is ‘hard to enter the Muslimhouse’andoffered‘lookingintolikeplaces’suchasinnsetcasanalternative.
Chapter3
127
the mesh of traditional latticework (mušepci) were all shown as freefloating
elements used in a modern expression, abstracted form their context and
presentedindividually[Figure18].
Figure 18: Neidhardt’s development of the ‘elemental’architectural vocabulary of Bosnia. Single man housingproject for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.317.
The drawings make reference to the formal qualities of the traditional house’s
spaces.Inordertoprovideaplaceforgatheringandconversation,adivanhana–a
wide, semienclosed entry space in the traditional house described in Grabrijan’s
earlier writings – formed the first point of contact and an entry point to the
dwelling.InthehousingproposalforZenica,thisspacetooktheshapeofabalcony.
Unlikeinthetraditionalhouse,wherethedivanhanaconnectedallthesurrounding
spaces,hereitformedaseparatearea.Whatwasanintimateandenclosedspacein
the traditional house, here was strictly limited to the front of the building. It
became its public facade. The comfortable sofas (divans) of divanhana were
Chapter3
128
replaced by a narrow benchspace on the inside of the railing. The ornate timber
detailingwasreplacedwithhorizontal louvres,andpicturesofworkersandvillage
life replaced the pictures and simple objects conventionally used to decorate the
walls of the traditional house. The space ofdivanhanawas still connected to the
groundlevelbyasingleflightofstairs,butunlikeinthetraditionalhouse,wherethe
stairs mediated a series of spatial experiences from open to enclosed, here the
stairs functioned only as a physical connection linking the upper and lower levels
[Figure19].
Figure 19: Single man housing project for Zenica. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity, also published in ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.292.
Intermsofbuildinglayout,thesittingspaceofwhatinearlierdiscussionhadbeen
referredtoasanorientalhome,thedivanhana,openedintoalong,linearcorridor
with a reception desk at one end and a large common toilet block at the other
[Figure 20]. On both floors, two large common bedrooms were located on either
Chapter3
129
sideofthecorridor,eachaccommodating20singlebeds,totalling160bedsineach
building.Theinitialdesignproposedtiltupbeds,butinlaterproposalsmetalbeds
replaced them. Presumably to provide some privacy, lightweight partitions
separatedeachbedroomintotwoparts.Celebratedfortheflexibilityofitsfurniture
andthemultipleusesofspaces,thetraditionalhousedidnotseemabletoprovide
amodelforthisarrangement.Unlikeinthetraditionalhouse,theindividualrooms
inthisdesignwereassignedjustonefunction.
Figure20:Singlemen’shousingproject forZenica.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity, also published in ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.292.
Chapter3
130
InNeidhardt’stransformationoftheprivatehouseintoapublicresidentialbuilding,
the image of veiled women gave way to young men. The sensuality of the
traditionalhousewas replacedby themasculinityof the new.Thepictures of the
designmodelshowanumberofyoungmeninhabitingthespaceofdivanhana.They
appear comfortable in their new roles, enjoying themselves, their bodies relaxed,
and engaging in an active relationship with their surroundings. On thedivanhana
edges, the delicate timber lattices of the traditional Muslim house, so well
described and analysed in Grabrijan’s writings, were replaced by metal screens
alongtheexternalwall[Figure21].
Figure21:Singlemen’shousingproject forZenica.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity, also published in ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.287.
Thiscontextofworkers’housingallowedNeidhardt toaccept the influenceofold
fabriconnewdesign.Intheseprojects,thearchitecturalelementsofheritagefabric
were abstracted, modernised and then absorbed in the pragmatic and modular
modern approaches. By reducing the architectural characteristics of traditional
Chapter3
131
fabrictopatternsandornaments, theheritagewas, like inthemasterplanningof
Bašaršija, still assigned a background role of ‘scenographic display’. Despite the
apparentlimitationsofthescaleofdomesticdwellingandNeidhardt’semphasison
formalaspectsofarchitecture,thedesignsofthemininghousingprojectsmarkeda
recognitionandacknowledgmentoftheoldfabric’svalueincreatingthenew.
Conclusion:TheOrientoftheoldtownandthemodernityofnewsuburbs
Thevisionofamasterplanpresentedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’demonstrated
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’scommitmenttoamodernistapproachtourbanplanning
over an indepth study of the relationships between people, culture and
architecture. The plan for Sarajevo prioritised effective transport networks, urban
organisationandzoning,disregardingspecificurbanandhistoricalconditions.This
highlighted their aspiration to locate their work within the context of modern
urbanism rather than the sitespecific approach promoted by architects such as
Plenik.ThismeantthattheBašaršijaprecinct’simportancetonewurbanplanning
wentunrecognised.
IntheanalysisofhisoldBašaršija,Neidhardt,andbyextensionGrabrijan,didnot
question Le Corbusier’s approach, accepting it as a sound starting point for
investigatingtheIslamicheritageofSarajevo.During1930sGrabrijanhadpublished
aseriesofarticlesthatarguedthatauthenticandoriginalvalueswereembeddedin
theoldprecinct. In thiscollaborativepublication,however, theauthorspresented
the old fabric within concepts that highlighted it as generic and nonspecific in
Chapter3
132
nature. Their discussion placed a building’s physical form in opposition to the
emotional life that took place within it, undermining Grabrijan’s earlier argument
for an organic integration of architecture and people – the two inexorably
connected. ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ demonstrated the great influence of
Neidhardt’s formal and architectural approach over Grabrijan’s cultural and
theoreticalexplorations.
‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’viewedthelocalpopulationofBosnia,andBašaršijain
particular, through preconceived notions of Muslims living their lives within the
frameworkofIslam.ItsemphasisonthegenderandtheindulgenceoftheMuslim
family in particular served to compound the sense of otherness of the existing
context. Ultimately Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s position reinforced a stereotypical
andOrientalistvisionofIslamandtheMuslimpopulationofBosnia.
Atadistancefromthe‘dilapidated’and ‘dirty’ ‘Oriental’precinct, themasterplan
forthenewcity focusedonanefficienttrafficartery,onrationalplanningandon
hygiene. When the old city precinct was considered, the master plan proposed
either its eradication or significant modification of the very traditions that had
shaped it. The ‘static world’ of the Orient was relegated a secondary place, with
modernisation as essential to the new urban visions. Ultimately Grabrijan and
Neidhardt’splanproposedurbanisationasawayofchangingthecommunityandits
wayoflife.
Chapter3
133
Despite limited engagement with the city’s historic fabric, Neidhardt’s historical
referencinginthemininghousingdesignprovidedanimportantconnectiontothe
contextinwhichthetwoarchitectsoperated.Theirsubsequentbook,Architecture
ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,wasbuiltuponthoseexplorations.
Chapter4BosnianOrientalasanArchitecturalExpressionofSocialistIdeology
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s research on Bosnian architecture culminated in
ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity (ArhitekturaBosneiPutu
Suvremeno), published some 15 years after ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, in 1957.1
ThebookgainedbroadrecognitioninTitoistYugoslavia(1945–92),anditssocialist
policiesmade itoneoftheseminaltextsonmodernBosnianarchitecture.2Unlike
the thesis developed in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, which marginalised the
relevanceofBašaršijatothenewurbanplan,thediscussionpresentedinthisbook
identified it as a catalyst in creating a new and modern city. It argued that the
Islamic architecture of Sarajevo represented a uniquely Bosnian Oriental
architecturalandculturalexpression.
ThischapterexaminesthepositionofArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards
Modernityinrelationtothechangingpoliticalenvironmentofthepost–WorldWar
Two period and the formation of a new Yugoslav state. The state’s 1946
constitutionarticulateditspoliticalcornerstonesasthesocialistsystem,therightof
1DušanGrabrijandied in1952, fiveyearsbeforethepublicationofArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,Ljudska Pravica, Ljubljana, 1957. It appears that the book was ready forpublication as early as 1953, as the publishing company Država Založba Slovenije placed anadvertisementintheprofessionaljournalArchitectthatyear;citedinKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.314.2 In1946,thestatewasnamedtheFederalPeople'sRepublicofYugoslavia,andin1963renamedtheSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslavia.ThisstatedisintegratedinthewakeofYugoslavwarthatstartedinSloveniaandCroatia1991andinBosniain1992.
Chapter4
136
national selfdetermination and the Communist Party’s domination in public life.3
Fulfilling Tito’s wartime commitments, the constitution officially recognised five
Yugoslav nationalities: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrians.
BosnianMuslimswerenotincluded,fortheofficialpartybelievedMuslimswerea
separategroup,withoutanational identity.Sixrepublicswereestablished:Serbia,
Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Monte Negro and Bosnia and Hercegovina.4 Bosnia
and Hercegovina was the only one with no majority nationality or national name
[Figure22].
Figure 22: Territorial divisions of the former Yugoslavia,19451991.Source:Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.231.
3 For further discussion on post–World War Two Yugoslavia see Donia & Fine, Bosnia andHercegovina–ATraditionBetrayed;Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,;andN.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,specificallythechapters ‘BosniaandtheSecondWorldWar,1941–1945’and‘BosniainTitoistYugoslavia,1945–1989’.4Thenewterritorialborderscloselycorrespondedtothehistoricunitsbroughttogetherin1918toformtheKingdomoftheSerbs,CroatsandSlovenes.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory.
Chapter4
137
Inthispoliticalcontexttheinterplaybetweentheculturalandnationalidentitiesof
Bosnia was particularly important. The mixed cultural and religious heritage of
Bosnia simultaneously represented a secular, modern Yugoslavia and a uniquely
Bosnianregional identity.Consequently,whenArchitectureofBosniaandtheWay
TowardsModernityidentifiedthebuiltfabricofBašaršijaasanactiveforcecapable
of negotiating the conflicting ideological agendas of Yugoslav socialism, Grabrijan
and Neidhardt’s artistic agenda appeared to offer political solutions. This chapter
presents the gradual but strategic alignment between their views of culture and
architecture and the political themes that dominated the Bosnian scene in the
1950s. Through this relationship, I argue, they made architecture an active
ingredientinthenationmakingofsocialistYugoslavia.
TheYugoslavcommunistartisticagendaandaresistancetotheparticular
Immediately after World War Two, the Yugoslav government considered artistic
endeavourspromotingthespecificsofethnicnationalidentitiesmostlyirrelevant;a
nationalartspromotingtheexclusivevaluesofonenationalgroupcontradictedthe
multiethnic and multinational agenda of the new Yugoslavia. The government’s
idealnewsocietywaspredicatedonthedisappearanceofanyexpressionofloyalty
toaparticularnationstate.5Marxistoppositiontonationalismasbourgeois,andits
beliefinaninternationalcommunistsocietyprovidedfurthertheoreticalsupportto
thegovernment’sresistancetoindividualnationalexpressions.
5ForfurtherdiscussiononpostwarYugoslavismseeA.Djilas,TheContestedCountry,YugoslavUnityandCommunistRevolution1919–1953,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1996.
Chapter4
138
Perceiving tradition as ‘the surviving past’, the Communist Party denied its
relevance to the modern and progressive society they believed was being
constructed.6 Moreover, the search for connections with the past wasconsidered
detrimental to progress. As Tito said in 1942: ‘The main obstacle for full
achievementofourbrotherhoodandunityarethosewholookbackwards,whotry
to reestablish what used to be before the destruction of [the Kingdom of]
Yugoslavia’.7 In this context, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s exploration of the historic
fabric’srelevancetothenewcityhadnoapparentpurpose.
Theprimaryobjectiveofthepostwarcommunistgovernmentwastoestablishthe
newYugoslaviaasasecular,unitedandindependentstate.Religiousandnationalist
affiliations were seen as contrary this objective.8 Accordingly, a campaign was
launched that saw the suppression of the courts of Islamic law in 1946; the
introductionof lawforbiddingwomentoweartheveil in1950;andtheclosingof
religious schools, with the teaching of children in mosques becoming a criminal
6 Raymond Williams argues that the concept of tradition has been neglected in Marxist culturalthought.IhereuseWilliams’notionsoftraditionsdevelopedin‘Traditions,institutions,andtheories’todiscussMarxistdiscoursesofsocialistYugoslavia.Forfurtherdiscussionsee,R.Williams,MarxismandLiterature,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1977,p.115.7JosipBrozTito,‘NOBInacionalnopitanjeuJugoslaviji’,Tito’s1942speech,publishedinA.Isakovi,O ‘Nacionaliziranju’ Muslimana, 101 godina afirmiranja i negiranja nacionalnog identitetaMuslimana (101 years of affirmation and negation of Muslim national identity), Globus, Zagreb,1990,pp.130–31.8 ScholarshiponYugoslavapproaches to resolving the ‘nationalquestion’havebeen articulated inthe following periods: 1944–51, teleological industrialisation: it was believed that rapidindustrialisation would reduce the disparity between regional living standards and thus erodenationalantagonism;1951–60,Yugoslavnationalism:itwasbelievedindustrialisationwouldalleviatenationalism in the long term, although more immediate strategies focused on strengtheningYugoslavnationalism;and1960–69,thearticulationofYugoslavnationalismbasedoncommunityofnations. R. V. Burks, ‘Nationalism and communism in Yugoslavia: an attempt at synthesis’, in H.Birnbaum&S.J.Vryonis(eds.),AspectsoftheBalkans,ContinuityandChange,TheHague,1972,pp.397– 423; proceedings of an international conference held at UCLA, 23– 28 October 1969. Whileseeminglyoperatingwiththeparametersof1950sYugoslavnationalism,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sviewspromotedadifferentagenda.
Chapter4
139
offence. Many Catholic and Orthodox churches, monasteries, convents and
seminarieswerealsoclosed.9Whileallreligionssuffered,Islamwashardesthit,as
thepracticeofprayingfivetimesdailywasseenasmixingreligionwitheverydaylife
and Islam was considered ‘backwards and Asiatic’.10 Muslim cultural and
educational societies were also abolished, the Muslim printing house in Sarajevo
wasclosed,andnoIslamictextbookwasissuedinYugoslaviauntil1964.
With regards to thearts, thenewgovernmentexpectedartisticproductionwould
address the specifics of the communist agenda and follow Soviet trends.11 Stalin
saw culture as the most effective way of influencing mass consciousness and
assigned artists a revolutionary role in promoting the values of communism.12
ReflectingtheSovietview,Yugoslavartistsandwriterswereexpectedtodepict,in
9MalcolmnotesthattheCommunistPartytookasofterapproachtowardstheOrthodoxChurch,assomeof itsclergyservedas ‘progressive’priests inTito’sarmy.Healso indicatesthatsomeofthemeasuresintroducedbythecommunistswerecovertlyresisted:Islamictextscontinuedtocirculate,childrenwere taught inmosques, thedervishorderskeptuptheirpractices inprivatehomes,andthe Young Muslims, a student organisation, resisted the campaign against Islam until severalhundredof itsmemberswereimprisonedin1949–50.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.195–96.10Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.195.11 The majority of Yugoslav Party members spent their formative years in the USSR, so the‘bolshevisationoftheCommunistPartyofYugoslavia’wasfeltstronglyintheearlypostwaryears.Indiscussion of the impact of Soviet artistic debates on Yugoslavia, historian Pekovi identified theSecond International Writers Conference, held in the Soviet town of Harkov (Kharkov) in 1930, ofparticular importance. The conference highlighted the role of the ‘proletariat’ in promoting thecommunistagenda,butbecausestrictadherencetothe‘Harkovagenda’andpromotionofsocialistrealismwasslightlydelayedinYugoslaviaitlostitsoriginalstrengthandpotency.R.Pekovi,NiRatNi Mir, Panorama književnih polemika 1945–1965 (Neither War nor Peace, [Yugoslav] LiteraryDebatesof1945–1965),Zavodzaizdavakudelatnost‘FilipVišnji’,Beograd,1986,pp.7–8.12SketchedoutbyLenin,socialistrealismbecameadominantmodeintheperiodbetween1946and1953.Itwaspresentedasastrict‘codeoflaw’ofSovietaesthetics,philosophyandtheoryofart.ThemainpromoterofthenewculturalpolicywasAndreiZhdanov.HejustifiedthisturnfromproletarianinternationalismtoRussiannationalismduringhisspeechattheCentralCommitteeconferencewithSoviet composers and musicians (February 1948), saying ‘Internationalism is engendered wherenationalartflourishes.Toforgetthistruthmeanstolosetheguideline,toloseone’sface,tobecomerootlesscosmopolitans.’Thewaveofculturalpogroms in1946 in theSovietUnionsweptawayallthose opposing the official views, who, in the official party views, distorted and negated thesignificanceofnationalculturalheritage.I.Golomstock,TotalitarianArtintheSovietUnion,theThirdReich,FascistItalyandthePeople’sRepublicofChina,IconEdition,GreatBritain,1990,pp.140–43.
Chapter4
140
anoptimistic light, themajorsocialchangesthatweretakingplace.Theapproach
required the creation of art that reflected daily life and experience in the new
society.
Respondingtothenewpoliticalclimate,Neidhardttookanactiveroleinthepost–
WorldWarTwourbandebates.In1945,hemovedfromhisprewarpositioninthe
steel industry to a position in the Ministry of Building, where he stayed until
November1946.Hewassoeagertocontributetothechangingsocietythatwhen
thefirstSocietyforCulturalCollaborationwiththeSovietUnionwasestablished,in
May 1945, he served as secretary.13 He enthusiastically contributed to the stage
setsforpoliticalevents,anddesignedpropagandamaterialforwhatwasconsidered
‘manifestation architecture’, or architecture that supported communist ideology.
He often worked without a commission and for free. His stageset designs were
usedforthecelebrationofthesocialistholidayof29November1947;forTito’svisit
to Sarajevo [Figure 23]; for the inauguration of the railway built by the Yugoslav
youth free labour [Figure 24]; and for numerous communist occasions, from May
DaytotheYugoslavArmyDay.AlloftheserevealanembracingoftheSovietstyle
genericworker’simaginary.14
13Kapetanovi, ‘Thearchitecturalworkof JurajNeidhardt’,p.271.Kapetanovistatedthat inMay1945 the Action Committee (Akcioni Odbor za osnivanje saradnje sa SSSR) in charge of culturalcooperationwiththeUSSRwasestablished.ItspresidentwasMinisterDrNedoZec;thesecretarieswereJurajNeidhardtandSlavkoMiunovi.14KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,pp.272–82.
Chapter4
141
Figure 23: Stage designed by Neidhardt for Tito’s visit toSarajevo. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.321.
Figure 24: ‘People build, state helps’ poster designed byNeidhardt. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.320.
Chapter4
142
AtthesametimeNeidhardtfocusedhisarchitecturalproductiononwhathesawas
the social agenda of socialism, leaving aside his earlier preoccupation with
Bašaršija.Hearguedthatthequalityoflivingconditionswascrucialforimproving
workers’ productivity, and he renewed his involvement in some of his prewar
projects. Without official appointment or pay, he resurrected his designs for the
mining workers’ housing of Ilijaš, Breza, Zenica, Ljubija and Vareš, and later
published them in Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity as
studiesofworkers’housing.
DespiteNeidhardt’sefforts,thecommunistgovernmentdidnotrecognisethevision
ofmodernarchitecturehewaspromotingascomplementarytotheircause,nordid
itapproveofNeidhardt’sfamilybackground.UnlikethepreviousproNazicoalition
government of the Independent State of Croatia, the early postwar communist
regime considered Neidhardt’s Croatian, Catholic and German heritage a serious
disadvantagetohisabilitytocontributetothenewstate.Hislackofinvolvementin
the‘liberationwar’(WorldWarTwo)andhisprewaremploymentwiththemining
company under the previous government further stigmatised his political profile.
TheextentofpoliticaloppositiontoNeidhardtwassogreatthathewasarrestedin
1947 and imprisoned for 42 days. He was accused of not blending into the new
socialist state and for excessively using drawing materials at the time when such
material was scarce.15 While ultimately he was released without trial, Neidhardt
15Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.281.
Chapter4
143
waspresentedasapersonincapableofcontributingtotherevolutionarycourseof
thenewcountry.
Professionally, Neidhardt was also marginalised. Kapetanovi quotes the engineer
Vaso Todorovi, who, in a job reference for Neidhardt, presented him as an
‘individualist’ and as someone who ‘dedicated himself to the tasks that only he
consideredimportant’.16Individualismwasnotanattributeassociatedwiththenew
socialist character; it had capitalist connotations in its concern for individual over
collectiveneeds.Todorovi’s referencenotedthatwhileNeidhardtwasa ‘capable
artistandanexcellentdraftsman’,hewas‘unabletoadjusttotheprofessionaltasks
[requiredbythenewgovernment]’.17UltimatelytheMinistrydemotedNeidhardtto
‘interior decorator’ – a role perceived as inferior to the professional one of
architect.18
In 1948, Neidhardt was publically criticised by Communist Party official Radovan
Zogovi.19 InaspeechattheFifthCongressoftheCommunistPartyofYugoslavia,
ZogovicondemnedNeidhardt’surbandesignproposalsasframedby‘theWestern
16 Original quote: ‘Zalaže se u poslu koji sam izabere I koji mu se svidi. Likovno spreman I odliancrtaneprilaogodljivnašimprilikamaustrunomposlu’.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.300.17Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,pp.297–81.18Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,pp.297–81.19Fullquote:‘Decadencyandformalisminarchitectureinourcontext,areexpressed,amongstotherthings,inaseriesofnew,recentlyconstructedordesignedarchitecturalobjects[thedesignsfornewstreetscapes of Sarajevo, etc] as well as in formalist theories that proclaim that the socalledfunctional constructivism … is the architecture of the new socialist society. The fight against theremnantsandrecidivism[sic.]of theWestern formalismanddecadency… includedsofarandwillinclude–toacertainextent–inthefuturefightforpopularizationofthegreattraditionsofSovietart, and the fight against any attempt to intellectually undermine Soviet artistic production.’ R.Zogovi, originally published inArhitektura, nos. 11–12, 1948, p. 56; cited in I. Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,1945–1990,(YugoslavArchitecture,19451990),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1991,p.12.
Chapter4
144
decadency and formalism’, and therefore incapable of representing the
‘architecture of the new socialist society.’20 Such an approach, Zogovi suggested,
promotedWesternformalismanddecadencyandthevaluesthattheYugoslavParty
will‘fightagainst’.21‘OurParty’,Zogoviconcluded,‘hasalwayssuccessfullyfought
thisbattle[againstindividualisminarchitecture]anditwillcontinue,ofcourse,with
thesamesuccessinthefuture’.22
ThegrowinglevelofSovietpropagandaarguingthat internationalmodernismwas
an expression of capitalism heightened the negative perception of Neidhardt’s
professionalwork.Neidhardt’sWesterneducation,particularlyhisassociationwith
the modernist architectural scene and most notably Le Corbusier, was seen as a
hindrance to his ability to contribute to the architecture of the new socialist
revolution.AsarchitecturalhistorianGregCastillohasargued,thisdiscoursewould
result in the perception of two competing design vocabularies – socialist realism
and international style modernism – as antithetical signatures of Eastern and
Western European architecture respectively.23 This oppositional relationship
formed a significant part of Cold War discourse, and expressed alternative
constructsofpost–WorldWarTwonationalidentities.24WhileGrabrijanwasheldin
higher regard by the communist government than Neidhardt, his move from
20Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,p.12.21Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,p.12.
22Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,p.12.23G.Castillo,‘SocialistrealismandbuiltnationalismintheColdWar“BattleoftheStyles”’,Centropa:AJournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.1,no.2,2001,pp.85–94.Seealso,G. A. Castillo, ‘Constructing the Cold War: architecture, urbanism and the cultural division ofGermany,1945–1957’,PhDthesis,UniversityofCalifornia,2000.24Castillo,‘SocialistrealismandbuiltnationalismintheColdWar’,pp.85–94.
Chapter4
145
Sarajevo to Ljubljana in 1945contributed to the significant decrease in the public
presenceoftheirideas.25Itwasonlywithinthecontextofthedramaticallychanging
political terrain of late 1940s’ Yugoslavia, that Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s work on
Sarajevo’sheritagefabricwouldgainrelevance.
Thechangingpoliticalcontext:Tito–Stalinconflict
In themid1940s the relationshipbetweenYugoslav leader JosipBrozTito (1892–
1980)andSovietleaderJosephStalin(1878–1953)deteriorated,causingafracture
inthe ideologicalgroundingoftheYugoslavCommunistParty(KPJ).26Thepolitical
turmoil was prompted by Soviet allegations that the KPJ was departing from the
communist agenda. It ended with the 1948 expulsion of Yugoslavia from the
Cominform[CommunistInformationBureau].27RejectedbytherestoftheEastern
Bloc,theKPJfounditselfpoliticallyandideologicallyisolatedfromothercommunist
countries.
25UponthebeginningoftheWorldWarTwoGrabrijanstayedinSarajevo,teachingattheTechnicalSchooluntil1945.Hewas imprisonedbytheGermansforsometimeduringthewar,consideredasupporter of the resistance movement. Soon after the end of the war, in 1945, Grabrijan leftSarajevo and returned to Slovenia to take up an academic appointment at the University ofLjubljana. In 1946 he was appointed Associate Lecturer, in 1947 Docent and 1951 AssociateProfessor of history of architecture and principles of design at the Faculty of Architecture inLjubljana.26TheconflictresultedintheCominformResolutionof28June1948,whichexpelledtheCommunistParty of Yugoslavia from Cominform. Extensive literature on this issue suggests the CominformResolution arose from Stalin’s attempts to control other communist states, as well as Tito’sunwillingnesstoobeyStalin’sinstructions.Inparticular,YugoslaviawasconsideredtobepushingtoofasttowardsunificationwithBulgariaandAlbania.AlthoughfollowingStalin'sproposalforaseriesofsuch unifications, Tito was seen to be proceeding without proper consultation with Moscow.Another issue was Tito's eagerness to ‘export the revolution’ to Greece. For an overview of thispoliticalconflictseeMalcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.194–95.27Cominformisanabbreviationfrom‘CommunistInformationBureau’.Theword‘Informbiro’istheYugoslavnameoftheCominform.TheCominformwasanetworkmadeupofthecommunistpartiesof Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union andYugoslavia (until1948). In thehistoryofYugoslavia, Informbirorefers totheperiodbetween1948and1955,andischaracterisedbyconflictwiththeSovietUnion.
Chapter4
146
Theseparationputpressureonthepartytoredefineitsidentitybothnationallyand
internationally.Particularlychallengingwasthetaskofconveyingthefactthatthe
break had had no negative effect on the country’s determination to embrace
communism. Contrary to previously held beliefs, the party argued that it was
possible for Yugoslavia to build its own brand of communism. While the public
portrayalofTitoas independent, liberalandantiStalinistwas intendedtoset the
leaders apart, the process of identifying unique political approaches that would
confirmthosedifferencesprovedmoredifficult.28Adding to thepressurewas the
needtoidentifyauniquelyYugoslavartisticexpressionthatsupportedthepolitical
changes.
Intheartisticdebatesthisdilemmawasexacerbated,atleastpartly,bythefactthat
unlikeintheSovietUnion,theKPJneveridentifiedtheavantgardeasaconstituent
andnecessarypartoftherevolutionaryproject.29Yugoslaviabypassedtheapproach
set by the October Revolution (1917) and the Soviet Union (1922), which
presupposedthecreationofanewartasnecessaryinestablishinganewsociety.In
theSovietcontext,thisnecessitysetinmotionarangeofavantgardemovements,
such was constructivism.30 So once the Yugoslav Party denounced its shortlived
28Forseveralyearsaftertheconflict,Tito’spolicieswerecloselymodelledonthoseofStalin.Unclearaboutitsgoals,thepartyaffectedabalancebetweenauniqueYugoslavapproachandanappealtotheSovietblock,toregain itssupport.TheYugoslavfederalconstitutionproclaimed in1946wasacopyoftheSovietconstitutionproclaimed10yearsearlier.The1949communistleadership’srapidcollectivisationofpeasantsmallholdingsdemonstrated thehesitancyofYugoslav leadershipat thetime.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.194–95.29S.Musabegovi,‘War–theconstitutionofthetotalitarianbody’,PhDthesis,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,2004.30 Musabegovi, ‘War – the constitution of the totalitarian body’; and S. Musabegovi, Ratkonstitucijaratnogtijela,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,2007,pp.13–14.
Chapter4
147
dedication to Sovietstyle social realism in art and architecture, it was left with a
theoreticalandideologicalvoidastowhatkindofartreflectedofitsprogram.31
Tito’ssearchfor‘our’architecture
The vacuum created by the political shift provided opportunities not previously
availabletolocalartists,andGrabrijanandNeidhardtappearedawareofthisnew
potential. While the desire to incorporate a social agenda had underpinned their
worksince theverystartof theircollaboration, itwasonly in1947 thatGrabrijan
openlyacknowledgedthepoliticalpotentialoftheirarchitecturalwork.Inaletterto
Neidhardthewrote,‘ThemoreIthinkaboutTito’ssearchfor“ourarchitecture”the
more itbecomescleartomethatourpathto localarchitectureviathemodernis
veryfortunate!’32Confirminghisbelief inhisoriginal ideasofBosnianKunstwollen
torepresenttheuniquenatureoflocalart,GrabrijanencouragedNeidhardt‘notto
lose faith’ and to persevere in the promotion of what they now referred at as
31Theambiguityoftheartists’positionwasreflectedinthealternatingsupportandresentmentofthe Soviet government. In a letter to the conference of the Society of Artists of Bosnia andHercegovina, held in February 1949, artists stated their commitment to ‘the exploration anddefinitionofsocialistrealisminthearts’aswellastheirrejectionof‘theuntruestatementsandthe[Stalinist’s] campaign against our people’. Quoted in Prilike 1945–1974, Umjetnika Galerija BiH,Sarajevo,p.15.TheCommunistPartycommitteessuchasAgitprop[agitationandpropaganda]thatpreviously supported the Soviet agenda shifted their interest towards defining the parameters ofauthentically Yugoslav artistic production. For further discussion see M. Markovi & G. Petrovi(eds.), Introduction, Praxis, Yugoslav Essays in the Philosophy and Methodology of the SocialSciences,BostonStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience,D.ReidelPublishingCo.,Holland,1979.32Originalquote:‘Štodalje,tolikouvidjamdajeovajzahvatprekodomaedomodernevrlostretan!IkadBežek(ljub.arhitekt,D.Grabrijanovprijatelj,prim.aut.)kojijedobronamjeranujedaTitotraži‘našu’ arhitekturu, veli više je našega u onom gdje se Najdhardt približio Bosni nego li uRavnikarovom klasicizmu’. English translation: ‘The more I think about it [Bosnian Orientalarchitecture],themoreitbecomescleartomethatthispathtolocalarchitectureviathemodernisveryfortunate!WhenBežek(aSlovenianarchitectfromLjubljanaandGrabrijan’sfriend)whoisverywell intentioned,heardthatTitowasafter ‘our’architecture,hesaidthattherewasmoreof ‘our’[architecture] in Neidhardt’s interpretation of Bosnian architecture than in [Slovenian architect]Ravnikar’sclassicism’.Letterdated8June1947,citedinKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.297.
Chapter4
148
BosnianOrientalarchitecture.33Grabrijansuggested that their ideaswere ‘twenty
to fifty years ahead of their time’ and that their further development could only
enhancetheirpublicstanding.34
Overthenextfiveyearstheyputsustainedeffortintopromotingtheirworkthrough
publicexhibitions, lecturesandprofessionalengagements.Grabrijan,whobythen
was in Ljubljana, kept up his writing, and published supportive reviews of
Neidhardt’s architectural projects, such as his competition entry for the design of
theSlovenianParliamentinLjubljana(1948).35Atanationalurbansymposiumheld
inDubrovnik in1950,hepresentedapaperthatarguedfortheimportanceofthe
Oriental architecture of Bosnia and Hercegovina.36 The argument was further
advanced through numerous articles on Oriental heritage in other parts of
Yugoslavia,suchasinMacedonia.37Neidhardt,forhispart,advocatedtheBosnian
33Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.297.34 Grabrijan suggested that their approach had been already recognised by some, such as hisSlovenian colleague Bežek who, according to Grabrijan, had suggested that Bosnian Orientalrepresented the qualities sought from ‘our’ architecture. Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural work ofJurajNeidhardt’,p.297.35Thedesignsfortheworkers’housinginVarešMejdanwereexecutedin1954,Kralupiin1952andBrezikin1947.ThecompetitionentryfortheSlovenianParliamentwasdonein1947–48.36D.Grabrijan,‘MislioNašiDedišinivZvezizReferatisPosveta,ArhitektovvDubrovniku’,SlovenskiEtnograf, no. 5, 1952, pp. 101106; originally presented as ‘O naši orientalski in sodobni hiši, at asymposiumonhistoricheritageofYugoslavia,Dubrovnik,1950.37AlistofarticlesthatspecificallydealtwiththetopicofOrientalheritageinYugoslaviaisincludedinthecollectionofGrabrijan’sreprintedarticlespresentedinDž.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo.Itincludesfollowingtitles:‘OrijentalnahižavSarajevu’,Arhitektura,nos23–24,Zagreb,1949;‘Našaorijentalnai savremena kua’, paper presented at a conference ‘Problemi arhitekture in urbanizma LRS’, Iposvetovanje FLRJ, Dubrovnik 1950; ‘Misli o naši dedišini v zvazi z referati s posveta arhitektov vDubrovniku Ljubljana, 1950’ presented also under the title ‘Dedišina narodov FLRJ v arhitekturi’,Likovni svet, Ljubljana, 1951; ‘Arhitektura v merilu loveka’, Arhitekt, Ljubljana, May–June 1952;‘ArhitektonskonasljedenarodaJugoslavije’,Arhitektura,br.5,Zagreb,1952; ‘Organskiurbanizem’,Arhitekt, Ljubljana, November–December 1952; ‘Le Corbusier’, Naši razgledi, Ljubljana, 4 October1952;‘Obeležjemakedonskecivilnearhitektureinnjenitvorci’,Naširazgledi,Ljubljana,18October1952.
Chapter4
149
Orientalagendathroughhismodernarchitecturaldesigns.Theireffortsculminating
inthebookArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity.
ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity:a ‘synthetic integrationoftheoldexperiencesandnewsocialistneeds’
TheverytitleofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sbook,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWay
TowardsModernity,servedtolinkBosnia,modernityandtheprogressivenatureof
theirideas.ConfidentthattheuniquequalitiesofBosnianarchitecturecontributed
to the new society under development, Neidhardt and Grabrijan considered the
bookamanifestoofnewtimes:
Today,westandonthethresholdofanewcivilization.Weliveinatimemarkedby
the transition of capitalism into socialism. At this stage we have to deal with
specificdifficulties.Thetransitionaltimeneedsaclearposition.38
ThecriticalpointaboutArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity is
thatNeidhardtandGrabrijanwerenotinterestedin‘bringing’modernitytoBosnia,
but in showing that Bosnia’s uniqueness represented the essence of what they
considered modern. In ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ they had sought to connect to
theprinciplesofmodernurbanism–itsrationalplanningandefficiency–tosupport
andcarryforwardtheirownurbanideas.Butthisbookfocusedonthespecificsof
Bosnianheritageandonpromotingthemodernitytheyclaimedwasalreadythere.
Reintroducing Grabrijan’s early discussion of the Bosnian fabric’s modernity they
wrote:
38Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.14–15.
Chapter4
150
Is aršija not a source of modern architecture? Why do we look for inspiration
elsewhere,continuallygetting it fromsecondhandsources,whenweareat their
origins? … Aren’t musandere like modern built in wardrobes? Aren’t seije like
modern built in couches and modern low furniture? [Aren’t elements of Bosnian
Oriental architecture, such as] the double height space, the single flight of stairs,
and the vegetation which spills into our dwellings [all elements of modern
architecture].’39
The book does not address debates on modern urban planning previously
considered important, but rather focuses on the historical and political issues
particulartoBosnia.Itpresentstheauthors’viewsonquestionsregardingtheorigin
of the Bosnian population, Muslims in particular, and the value of Bašaršija’s
heritage. All of these were pertinent to the growing search for a unique socialist
Bosnianidentity.
As in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ the book includes an historical overview of the
built fabric, as well as a discussion of the people. Unlike the first publication,
however,whichaddressedtheissuesseparately,heretheurbanandculturalissues
arefoldedintoone;theanalysisofbuiltfabricispresentedthroughadiscussionof
cultural practices and historical changes that shaped the urban forms. This
approachisillustratedbyadrawingofatree,agraphicmetaphorforthetheoretical
andconceptualorganisationofthebook[Figure25].Thetree’srootsystemincludes
varioussocialandemotionalfactors,suchastemperament,traditionandreligionto
39 Original quote: ‘Zar nije takav izvor savremene arhitekture sarajevska aršija? Zašto da izvoretražimo na drugim mjestima, da neprestano primamo iz tree ruke, kada smo na izvoru? Zar nisumusandere – savremeni uzidani ormari? Zar nisu seije savremeni kaui? I savremeno niskopokustvo,tedvoetažniprostoriijednakokrakestepenice,pavegetacija,kojaulaziuprostoristan,kojaseprelijevaupriroduitd.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.14.
Chapter4
151
physical aspects such as materials, climate and topography. Growing out of the
roots, the tree trunk shows a blending of factors from the root system and the
mediation of those by additional factors, such as ‘people and their land’ and the
‘unwritten laws’ – a reference to customary building practices.40 The city is the
resultofallsuchinfluences,representedbythetwolargebranchesofthetree.The
branchesrepresentthetypicalOttomandivisionofSarajevo–thebusinessdistrict
ofaršija(Bašaršija)andresidentialquarterofmahala.41Thedrawingpresentsthe
city as a natural, organic and historical process that integrates a diverse range of
biological,physical,material,socialandemotionalfactors,providingthetheoretical
groundingforthebookitself[Figure26].
40The‘unwrittenlaws’included:localbuildingpractices(gradjevnipostupak);rightstoaview(pravona vidik); relationship to nature (odnos do prirode); spatial architecture (prostorna arhitektura);‘growing’houses(kuekojerastu);houseswithoutfurniture(kuebezmobilijara);surfacestructure(površinestruktura);domeandcubes(kupolastaIkockastaarhitektura)[abstractform];architectureinhumanscale(arhitekturaumjeriluovjeka).41Thewordsusedinthisdrawingare ‘Turcism’;theyarenottheSerboCroatianorBosnianwordsbut‘loans’,wordsmostcommonlyfromTurkishbuttransformedandpronouncedasBosnian/SerboCroatian.
Chapter4
152
Figure 25: Structure of the book as represented as a tree.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.4.
Chapter4
153
Figure26:DrawingofapanoramaofSarajevo,showinganharmonious connection between the terrain and the city.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.5.
The introduction concludes with the statement that this new analysis of the old
fabricmarksa‘rebirth’of‘ahistoriccondition’andareemergenceofthequalities
thathavealwaysbeenthere.42Justifyingthecontemporaryrelevanceofthehistoric
fabric,theywrote:
While for the last half of the century we have been studying all the significant
Roman monuments, in Bosnia we have done nothing for the architecture of our
recentpast.It isthelastmomenttodosomethingaboutit,toprotect,study,and
revealitsprinciples,whichareours,goodandcontemporary,andtotranslatethem
intocontemporary life.Why?Becausethey[theseprinciples]arehuman,because
they reach for connection with nature, because they respect neighbours, are
democratic,unpretentiousandnonpathetic.43
Thefirstpartofthebookpresentsan interpretativeanalysisofhistoricBašaršija,
andthesecondpart itsrelevancetomodernarchitecture.Thefivechaptersinthe
first part are titled ‘The people and land’; ‘The city’; ‘The market place’; ‘The
42Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.14.43Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.13
Chapter4
154
neighbourhood’ and ‘The house’.44 Drawing on many secondary sources from the
fields of ethnography, historiography, architecture and art history, Grabrijan’s
research provided documentation, description and historical recording for those
chapters.
Part two comprises chapters six and seven: ‘Unwritten laws’ and ‘The revival of
Bosnian and Hercegovinan architecture’.45 These chapters present Neidhardt’s
interpretation of the essential relationship between traditional and modern
architecture.Thesectionincludesalmost50designproposals,whichrangeinscale
andtypefromlargeurbanmasterplanstoindividualdetails,andfromlargepublic
buildings to the design of picnic pavilions. Their conceptual grounding, Neidhardt
argues,isintheOttomanheritagefabricofBosnia.Chaptersevenincludesan‘up
todate architectonic dictionary’, which aims to present a ‘model of architecture
that shows the way by which we could eventually arrive at our own new
architecture’.46AlmostexclusivelyfocusedontherelevanceofBašaršijatothenew
city, the book, in both structure and conceptual approach, highlights the timely
natureoftheauthors’renewedinterestinthehistoricfabricoftheprecinct.
44 Chapter one ‘The people and land’ (Narod and Zemlja); chapter two ‘The city’ (Grad); chapterthree‘Themarketplace’(aršija);chapterfour‘Theneighbourhood’(Mahala)andchapterfive‘Thehouse’(Kua).45 Chapters six ‘Unwritten laws’ (Nepisani Zakoni) and chapter seven ‘The revival of Bosnian andHercegovinanarchitecture’(PreporodArhitektureuBosniIHercegovini).46Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.318.Thebookfeaturesarangeofvisualmaterial,includingphotographs,sketchesanddrawingsbytheauthors’aswell as children’s and students’ drawings. A section titled the ‘Specification of collaborators andgraphicmaterial’presentedadetailedlistofillustrationcredits.ThelistsuggeststhatbothGrabrijanand Neidhardt provided illustrations for the historical research presented in the introduction andfirst five chapters. The drawings of the last two chapters were credited to Neidhardt only. Mostcommonly historic and technical/architectural drawings were contributed by Grabrijan,interpretativesketchesandthreedimensionaldrawingsbyNeidhardt.
Chapter4
155
Redefiningthegroundsuponwhichanationisconstructed
The origin of Bosnian Muslims that opens the book is presented as a series of
dialectical questions and answers that seek to highlight the subjective nature of
historic interpretation and the shifting grounds upon which those views are
constructed. ‘Who are these people?’ the authors ask. The answer, they state,
cannot be provided definitively, but rather in a rhetorical question such as, ‘[Are
they]Turkswhosettledhere’or ‘the localpopulation’ofBogumils?And if indeed
they are the Turks who came with the Ottomans, ‘What happened to all the
BogumilsfromBosniaaftertheTurksarrived?DidtheyconvertandacceptIslam?’47
In response, the authors stated, ‘These people’ [referring to a collective of local
population,notnecessarilyMuslims]‘atonemomentbelongedtoaSerbian,thenat
anothertoaCroatianstate’.48Thismarkedaconceptualshift,awayfrompresenting
BosnianMuslimsinaninseparablerelationtothereligionofIslamtodiscussingthe
Muslim community through the inevitable forces of history. This represented a
majorchangeinGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sapproachtotheissueofcultureaswell
as built heritage, and was timely given the party’s growing frustration with its
inabilitytoovercomenationaldifferencesandcreateanewfrictionfreesociety.It
alsoquestionedtheessentialistnotionsofidentitypromulgatedbynationalists.
Asalreadydiscussed,withinBosniatheissueofBosnianMuslims’nationalidentity
was of particular importance. Through its specific historic circumstances Bosnia
47Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.48Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.
Chapter4
156
escapedtransformationintoanationstate.Asaresult,unlikeneighbouringSerbia
andCroatia,whichwereinhabitedbythepredominantSerbandCroatpopulations
respectively,Bosniawasnota landofBosnians;throughoutitshistoryitremained
inhabitedbyBosnianMuslims,Serbs (Orthodox),Croats (Catholics)and Jews.49By
the20thcenturythenationalistmovementsofSerbiaandCroatiahadmanagedto
tie the Bosnian Orthodox and Catholic population to Serb and Croat national
identities, causing significant confusion over the national status of the Bosnian
Muslims.
In the context of Serbian nationalism, liberation from Ottoman colonial power in
the 1830s had propelled its nationalist ideology. The nationalists portrayed the
Serbian struggle against Ottoman foreign domination as a reflection of their
superiorityoverothernationalandreligiousgroups,andassociatedthechangeof
political structure with a victory of Christianity over Islam. Among the most cited
examples of Serbian literature supporting nationalist discourse is Petar Petrovi
Njegošhistoricalplay,theMountainWreath.50Centredontheexterminationofall
‘Turks’, not only those of Turkish origins but also those who, like the Muslims of
Bosnia, converted to Islam, the plot encouraged religious cleansing as a way to
purify Serbian ethnic space.51 The subsequent ideology supporting the growing
desirefortheterritorialexpansionofGreaterSerbiapresentedBosnianMuslimsas
49Buturovi,‘ProducingandannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’,pp.29–33.50 For a broaderdiscussion of theMountainWreath seeA. Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.40–45.51Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.40–45.
Chapter4
157
eithertraitorswhooughttobeexpelledorasconvertswhooughttoreturntotheir
Christianorigins.
While Croatian nationalism emerged from a different political framework, it too
questioned the existence of a collective Bosnian political identity and the role of
Muslims within it. Croatian nationalism developed in response to a long cultural
subordinationtoAustro–Hungarianruleandmorespecificallyitspoliciesofcultural
assimilation. Eventually liberated from such historical and cultural constraints,
Croatian nationalists promoted their cultural superiority and focused on religious
membershipasapowerfulcommondenominatorofallCroats.52Significantly,while
both Serbian and Croatian nationalisms were premised on a sense of the
exclusiveness of their own cultures, they did not necessarily exclude Bosnian
Muslims. Many indeed, such as Antun Starevi, advocated Croatian identity that
includedBosnia.53
It was, therefore, the Muslim community that Serbian and Croat nationalists
expected to change. Considered a religious group with no national character,
Muslims were required to ‘decide’ on their national affiliation and ‘choose’ their
nationalbelonging. Asa resultofwhat Buturovinamed ‘a triangleof contending
forces’pullingindifferentdirections,54theBosnianMuslimswerecaughtbetween
threedifferentandoverlappingnationalidentities:someacceptedSerbianidentity,
52Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.40–45.53 Buturovi’s ‘Producing and annihilating the ethos of Bosnian Islam’ presents a summary of theissuesrelatedtothepositionandroleofIslaminBosnia.WachtelalsodiscussestheissuesofIslaminrelationshiptoYugoslavculturaldevelopment.54Buturovi,‘ProducingandannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’,pp.29–33.
Chapter4
158
some Croatian and some promoted uniquely Bošnjak national identity.55 Others,
however, argued that Islam was more important than any nation, or alternatively
recognised their Slavic origins and membership of a SerboCroatian tribe as the
mostimportantaspectoftheiridentity.56Thisprocessof‘internalnationalisation’of
the Bosnian community fractured its cohesion, making each of the three main
groupsseekalliancesoutsidethecountry’sborders.57
The communist government’s frustration with its failure to resolve this issue and
the persistence of nationalist formations resulted in a change of the party’s
approach.58Theissuewasnolongeroneofovercomingthenationalistdivisions,but
of controlling and administering the national grouping. Admitting the presence of
nationaldivisionsandsearchingfortheiracknowledgement,anofficialatthe1940s’
55AlthoughBošnjaknational identityincludedthethreemainreligiousgroupsofBosnia’sMuslims,Serbs (Orthodox) and Croats (Catholics), in reality it relied on Bosnian Muslims. Bosnia’s Austro–Hungarianadministrator,FinanceMinisterBenjaminKállay–theheadtheBosnianBureaubetween1882 and 1903 – first introduced the concept. Kallay believed the formation of a political nation,suchascollectiveBosniannation,wouldunitealldifferentpeoplewithinacommonadministrativeand political structure and deny or diminish the relevance of national unity based on nationalidentity. For further discussion see T. Kraljai, Kalajev Režim u Bosni i Hercegovini 1882–1903(Kallay’sGovernanceofBosniaandHercegovina),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1987.56TheJMO,thestrongestMuslimparty,recognisedandacceptedthedifficultiesofcompetingwiththe Serb and Croat nationalist agenda and suggested that its members choose between the two,based on the economic prospects offered by either side. Illustrative of the curiousness of thisarrangementistheoftencitedexampleofJMO18deputies(andtheiralternativeselectedin1923election) who all, but for party president Dr Mehmed Spaho, declared themselves as Croats.MehmedSpaho, who in his student days declared himself a Serb, later refused either the SerborCroatian label, while his brother Fehim, the reis ululema (Islamic religious head) of Yugoslavia’sMuslimsfrom1938to1942,wasaCroatandhisthirdbrother,Mustafa(anengineer),wasaSerb.Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,p.375.57Theterm‘internalnationalisation’iselaboratedinButurovi,‘Producingandannihilatingtheethosof Bosnian Islam’, pp. 29–33. Malcolm uses like term in relationship to a search for a ‘national’identityamongdifferentconfessionalgroupsthatheargueswereinspiredandmovedbytheforcesoutsideBosnia.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory.58Inanattempttotransformitself,thestructureoftheCommunistPartyofYugoslaviachangedinthe1950s.In1952,itsnamewaschangedtoLeagueofCommunistofYugoslavia,andthePolitburowas renamed Executive Bureau. The leadership decided the party should be transformed into amovement of socialist forces, that ‘should not command, but offer ideological leadership’. Thechange in approach decreased the party’s control over the public domain. Djilas, The ContestedCountry,p.174.
Chapter4
159
first party congress stated, in his speech, that Bosnia needed to accept those
divisions:
Bosnia cannot be divided between Serbia and Croatia, not because Serbs and
Croatslivemixedtogetheronthewholeterritory,butalsobecausetheterritoryis
inhabitedbyMuslimswhohavenotyetdecidedontheirnationalidentity.59
Attempting, through official organisation and administration, to provide political
platformsforcommunitiesthatwouldneutralisetheimpactofnationalistdebates,
the1948YugoslavcensuspresentedMuslimswiththreeoptionsfordeclaringtheir
nationality:MuslimSerbs,MuslimCroatsor‘Muslims,nationallyundeclared’.60This
showed the government’s willingness to recognise Muslims as a separate
community but not with a separate national identity.61 The next census, in 1953,
produced a similar result. But with official policy moving towards greater support
for a spirit of ‘Yugoslavism’, the category ‘Muslim’ was removed from the census
altogether;thenewcategoryof‘Yugoslav,nationallyundeclared’wasintroduced.62
The 1961 census stopped short of recognising Muslims’ full national rights, but it
offered a category of ‘ethnic Muslim’, which was seen as more appealing than
previous options. The longstanding debate was eventually resolved by the 1968
League of Communist of Yugoslavia, which recognised Muslim claims and offered
theoptionof identifyingasBosnianMuslim in thesenseofanationality. Itwould
only be in the 1971 constitution that the change was officially instituted and the
59Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.197.60Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.198.61Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.198.62Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.198.
Chapter4
160
‘double’ identity for Muslims introduced: Muslim with a ‘capital M’ indicating
nationalaffiliation,andmuslimwitha‘smallm’,indicatingreligiousaffiliation.63
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’squestioningofMuslimoriginsproblematisedratherthan
confirmed the nationstate model as the only way by which communities can be
structured.Theirargument sought alternative factors thatcould define a national
bond:‘OnlyEuropeanslookfortotalityandclassifyanindividualbythesumtotalof
religion, nationality and extraction [heritage].’64 And it was for that reason that
‘Europe had so many difficulties’ with the Islamic world.65 Unable to comprehend
the ‘nonEuropean’ way of thinking about a nation, foreign rulers of Bosnia, they
argued, misinterpreted the Muslims of Bosnia and perceived them always as
‘somebodyelse’.66TheAustrians, theystated, identified ‘themwiththeTurks, the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia found them to be Serbs, and Croatia to be Croats, etc.’67
Presenting Bosnian identity within a long history of misconceptions and
misunderstandings, Grabrijan and Neidhardt acknowledged the transient and
changingnatureofidentityformation.Theyalsochallengedthegovernment’slack
of capacity to finally resolve the issue, and resist and overcome nationalist
pressures.
63Thechangewasofficiallyrecognisedinthe1971constitution.ForfurtherdiscussionseeDonia&Fine, Bosnia and Hercegovina, pp. 178–79 and Buturovi, ‘National quest and the anguish ofsalvation:BosnianMuslimidentityinMešaSelimovi’sDervishandDeath”’.64Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.65Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.66Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.67Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.
Chapter4
161
Grabrijan and Neidhardt perceived the socialist government’s ongoing changes to
theclassificationoftheMuslimcommunityasnewgroundsuponwhichtheconcept
ofanationcouldbeestablished.Nolongerwasidentitydefinedbyaframeworkof
national,ethnicorreligiousbelonging,butitcouldbeassembled,albeitwithingiven
limitations, and constructed upon one’s own choosing. Neidhardt stated that the
interpretativeandpersonalnatureofsuchaprocesshelpedhimtodiscoverhisown
identity; he claimed to be ‘Croatian by birth and Bosnian by choice’.68 He
encouraged his students to combine the various traditions of Bosnia into a new
experience, promoting collective gatherings to celebrate various religious and
culturalholidays.Thesevariedfromearlymorninggatheringsofuranak,associated
withMorningPrayerforMuslims,tothecelebrationofVidovdanDay,aspecialday
in the Serb calendar.69 This rethinking of the nationalist paradigm provided for a
more sympathetic and nuanced interpretation of not only the origins of Muslims
but also their place in the new Bosnian society. Once the collective identity of
Bosniawasconstructed,itwaspossiblefortheauthorstosearchfortheirauthentic
artsandarchitecture.
Unlikethediscussionpresentedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,whichconnectedthe
local Muslim population to focal points of Islam outside of Yugoslavia, the
discussion presented in Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity
68Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.239.69 Vidovdan or St Vitus' Day is a religious holiday observed on28 June. Vidovdan is also adate ofhistorical importance,markingSerbia’sbattleagainsttheOttomans,aswellastheassassinationofthe Austro–Hungarian crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which triggered WorldWar One among the most significant events. Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural work of JurajNeidhardt’,pp.324–26.
Chapter4
162
focused on the Muslims links to regional and local traditions. The authors argued
thattheevidenceofBosnianMuslimrejectionofthetranshistoricalassociationsto
theworldofIslamwasreadilyfound:
YouconfusetheBosnianMuslimthemostbyaskinghimtodeclarehisnationality.
Howmuchconfusionandpainhasthatkindofassociation/declarationcausedsince
it was first introduced by the former regimes. And when [the Muslim] confusion
wasnoticeditwasofteninterpretedasmeanness.70
This transformation of alliances from Mecca and Islam at large to a specifically
Bosnian context was reflected in the redrawing of the Medina mosque, originally
publishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’[Figure13].
ThenewdrawingshowedtheMedinamosque,asymbolofreligiousbelief,replaced
byadrawingofaMeccapilgrimage,asymbolofMuslimcommunitygatheringand
shared values. Positioned at the edge of the composition, Mecca’s pilgrimage
squarewas isadistantandremoteplace,connected toSarajevoviaasea[Figure
27]. This weakened the visual connection between Sarajevo and the core of the
Islamicworld,shiftingthefocusonthecityitself.Infact,itcouldbearguedthatthe
intentofthedrawingwasnottosuggesttheimpactofmainstreamIslamonthecity
formation,butrathertoempowerthe localcontext, terrainandpeopletomodify
andalter the Islamiccanon intonewregionalexpression.The inclusionof diverse
daily experiences, such as praying, sitting, eating and walking, all highlighted
Sarajevo’s connection to the specific context and not, as previously suggested,
fanaticaldedicationtoIslam.
70Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.
Chapter4
163
Figure27:SketchshowingtheMecca–Sarajevolink.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.60.
WithoutexplicitlychangingthetermsbywhichGrabrijanandNeidhardtreferredto
Bosnian Muslims, the transformation of a general notion of ‘Oriental man’ into a
more local or specifically Bosnian Oriental is significant for my argument. This
transformation refocused the discussion on the local and organic connection
betweenthepeopleandartefacts,reignitingGrabrijan’searlierdiscussions,aswell
as downplaying the importance of external influences. No longer was the Muslim
population presented as Oriental and foreign, but rather it became a community
appreciatedforitsspecialculturalcontribution.Inaddition,theauthorsargued,the
community presentedanability to transform foreign influences intoadeeplyand
uniquelyBosniancondition–onedistinctfromitsSerbianandCroatianneighbours.
VestingBosnianMuslimswith thesenseof regional identityprovidedadirect link
between the local community and the land it occupied. Despite territorial claims
being one of the most ‘important categories through which nationhood can be
Chapter4
164
exploredandarticulated’,inthecaseofBosnia,Buturovihasargued,discussionsof
territorialcontinuitywereconspicuouslyabsent.71
Against trends that disregarded the correlation between people and territory as
importanttonationbuilding,GrabrijanandNeidhardtpresentedananalysisofthe
country’sculturalandarchitecturalheritageasakeytounderstandingtheBosnian
people and culture. Using an archaeological framework, the authors presented a
verticalexaminationofartefactsandobjectsfoundinBosnia.Toaccommodatethe
long historical span, the structures were used as markers of select periods, or
physicalevidenceofthedevelopingand longspanningculture.NotunlikePlenik,
whose inclusionofspecificobjects inhisurbanplanofLjubljanaservedtoremind
Slovenesoftheirhistoricorigins,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sinclusionofobjectsand
landmarkshelpedBosniansconstructacommonpast.
Aprehistorichouse(sojenica)abovewatermarkedthestartingpoint.Thesojenica
structures,theauthorsstated, ‘act[ed]asremindersofapeacefulcommunitythat
lived and worked there’, but whose ‘open city was destroyed by more aggressive
people’72 [Figure 28]. While discussed, subsequent periods of wars against Celts,
Gaul and Romans were not associated with specific visual markers or structures
fromthoseperiods,butthemedievalstructuresofsteciwereassignedasignificant
role.73
71Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.128.72Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.10&15.73 For a detailed discussion of steak, its history and role the tombstones played in the collectiveimaginationofBosniaseeAmilaButurovi’sStoneSpeaker.Buturovi’sstudypresentsanoverview
Chapter4
165
Figure28:Drawingofsojenicastructures.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.4.
The Middle Ages in Bosnia already occupied a prominent role in the collective
understanding of Bosnian history. Discussion centred primarily on the ‘traditional’
and popularly accepted theory of the role the medieval Bosnian Church played
whenfacedwiththeOttomantakeover.74Thetheoryoriginallypresentedby19th
centuryCroatianscholarFranjoRakiclaimedtheBosnianChurchwasanoffshoot
oftheBogumils,aBulgarianhereticalmovementfoundedinthe10thcenturybya
priest called ‘Bogumil’ (beloved by God).75 The Church preached a Manichean
‘dualist’theology,accordingtowhichSatanandGodwereofalmostequalpower;
the visible world was Satan’s creation and the only way for humans to free
themselvesoftheflawsofthematerialworldwastofollowanasceticwayof life.
of various hypotheses on the origins and symbolism of steak. It also situates the archaeology ofsteakwithintheinterpretativeframeworksthatlocatedtheoriesinscholarlyaswellaslaycircles.74 For further discussion see Malcolm, Bosnia – A Short History, particularly the chapters ‘ThemedievalBosnianstate,1180–1463’and‘TheBosnianChurch’.75Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.28–29.Raki’stheorygainedsignificantpopularityamongboth historiansand politicians.There were,of course, rival theories proposed by mostlySerb andCroathistorianswhoarguedthattheChurchofBosniawasonlyabranchoftheOrthodox/SerbianorCatholic/CroatianChurchrespectively,oracombinationofthetwo.
Chapter4
166
Also important, the Church rejected the traditional hierarchy of church structure
andwealthymonasteries.
AsarguedbyMalcolm,FranjoRaki’sBogumiltheorywaspopularformanyreasons.
It offered an answer to the large conversion of the Bosnian population to Islam
undertheTurks.76Itinterpretedthemassconversionasareactiontothecenturies
ofpersecutionby thecompetingCatholicandOrthodoxChurches.77ThusBogumil
theory became attractive to Muslims as they were no longer seen as ‘renegades
fromCatholicismorOrthodoxy’,butdescendantsof‘anauthenticallyandpeculiarly
BosnianChurch’.78TurningtoIslamwasnotanactofbetrayal,butarejectionofthe
oppressivenatureoftheChristianChurches.79
More importantly, theBogumil theoryexplainedthepresenceof large, limestone,
medieval monoliths distinguished by figural and scenic imagery, found in parts of
Bosnia.80Knownassteci(pluralofsteak)thegravestoneshavebecomegenerally
accepted as common in preOttoman and early Ottoman times [Figure 29]. They
76Acommonlyacceptedview,oftenpromotedbymembersoftheMuslimcommunity,suggeststhatBosnianMuslimsareconvertsoftheformerBosnianChurchandtherefore,ifnottheonlythenthemost, righteous carriers of the Bosnian nation. Donia & Fine present this view as a threefoldargumentunderlinedbytheassumptionthat1)theBosnianChurchwasBogumil;2)themajorityofBosniansweremembersofBosnianChurch;and3)atthetimeofconquesttheBogumils,frustratedbytheCatholicChurchpassedover,withouthesitation,tothenewreligionofIslam.DemonstratingthatconversiontoIslamwasgradual,takingBosniaalmost150yearstogainamajoritypopulationofMuslims, undermines the argument that acceptance of Islam in Bosnia was a result of massconversionoftheBosnianChurch.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.51–52;andDonia&Fine,BosniaandHercegovina.77Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.29.78Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.29.79 Malcolm states modern scholarship presents comprehensive evidence demolishing claims ofmassiveconversionstoIslambymembersofBosnianChurch.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.29.80Foradetaileddiscussionofsteak,itshistoryandroleinthecollectiveimaginationofBosniaseeButurovi, ‘Thearchaeologyof thesteak,historicalandculturalconsiderations’, inStoneSpeaker,pp.51–79.
Chapter4
167
wereusedbyallreligiousandsocialgroupsinmedievalBosnia,betraying,Buturovi
hasargued, ‘classand statusonly in lapidary representations’.81Theirpresence in
areasofBosniaassociatedwiththeactivitiesoftheBosnianChurchhelpedestablish
historicallinksbetweenthemandBogumiltheologicalbeliefs.82Despitesubsequent
historicalaccountspresentingconclusiveevidencethatunderminesthoselinks,the
issues concerning the Bogumils’ tradition became entangled with popular myths
andideologies.
Figure 29: Steak from Radimlje, Bosnia. Source: Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.19.
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of the Bogumils appears aligned with those
understandings. The book made extensive references to steci and associated
imagery, and argued that the tombstones were visual reminders of the
transformationsof localartisticendeavours.ThereferencetotheBogumilsadded
81Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.53.82BosniaandHercegovinaisnottheonlyterritorywheresteciarefound,andabout12percentofsteak cemeteries are found in other parts of former Yugoslavia, namely southern Croatia,Montenegro and Serbia. According to Buturovi, the number of steak cemeteries in formerYugoslaviais2988,whileindividualstecinumber66,663.Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.53.
Chapter4
168
anotheranchortotheircontentionofthegenuineandorganicrelationshipbetween
territory,artisticexpressionandthepeopleofBosnia.Theauthorspointed to the
‘unique technique of shallow relief’ used on the steci, which arguably
demonstrated the artists’ connection with the technique of ‘deep carvings of the
Romansarcophagus’[Figure30].83
Figure 30: Neidhardt’s sketch of steak, a medievaltombstone. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.
Referencing Riegl’s theories of the interconnected nature of artisticdevelopment,
theauthorspresentedsteakasa localtransformationofthe‘plasticityofantique
decorations’,andareferencepointintheworlddevelopmentofart.84Thediverse
decorative ornament offered proof of the Bogumils’ ‘capacity to accept the
influences that came about’ and adapt them as ‘their own expression’.85 In the
subsequentdiscussionsGrabrijanandNeidhardtconsideredsimilar qualities tobe
atthecoreoftheBosnianculture[Figure31].
83Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.20.84Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.2085 Original quote: ‘Radi se dakle of narodu koji je … prilagodljiv I dovoljno nadaren, da preuzmepostupke okoline, ali toliko samosvjestan, da ne govori kao ostali nego se izražava na svoj vlastinain’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.20.
Chapter4
169
Figure 31: Neidhardt’s sketch of steak ornaments anddecoration. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sinsistenceonestablishingachainofreferencetoexplain
the historical development of Bosnian art not only undermined nationalist views,
butalsoofferedanacceptableconceptualplace for theremnantsof theOttoman
legacy. Interpreted within what historian Maria Todorova has referred to as the
‘separatist’ view, the Ottoman legacy was commonly presented as residue of a
religiously, socially and institutionally alien society.86 Absorbed within the general
title of ‘Oriental’ artistic expression the Ottoman architectural heritage was
presented as synonymous with those of the Islamic and Turkish, and thus of
questionableauthenticity.87
86ThisviewwasbasedonaperceptionofincompatibilityofChristianityandIslam,andbyextensionbetweentheessentiallynomadicOttomansocietyandtheold,settled,urbansocietyoftheregion.Some aspects of this approach supported the ‘mechanical’ or ‘separate spheres’ approach to theOttoman legacy, which identified different aspects of cultural or political life. Todorova, ‘TheOttoman legacy in theBalkans’, inC.L.Brown (ed.), ImperialLegacy,TheOttoman Imprinton theBalkansandtheMiddleEast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,pp.45–77.87Todorovaidentifiestwobroadinterpretationsofthislegacy:theseparatistandtheorganicist.Theorganicist presents the Ottoman legacy as the complex symbiosis of the many influences thatimpacted on the region, namely Turkish, Islamic and Byzantine/Balkan traditions. The underliningrationaleisthatdespiteapparentreligious,socialandotherdifferences,thecenturiesofcoexistencemusthaveproducedacommonlegacythatwouldhavebeenthesameforalltheconstituentpartiesoftheOttomanlegacy.Todorova,‘TheOttomanlegacyintheBalkans’,pp.45–77.
Chapter4
170
Willing to accept the historical condition from which this architecture emerged,
GrabrijanandNeidhardtacknowledgeditsorigins:
ByallmeansthisarchitecturedevelopedundertheinfluencesoftheOrient,butits
elements are not simply [trans]planted from there to here, but grew out of our
peopleandoursoil.BosniawasontheperipheryoftheOttomanEmpire…Turkey
isallingold.[Incontrast]Bosniaissimple.88
Changing the basic premise upon which artistic authenticity could be constructed
allowedforanewinterpretation.AsGrabrijanhadalreadyargued inhispaperon
theBosnianhouse,historicalchangesmadeacrucialimpactonthetransformation
ofthisarchitecturefromits‘Turkish’originstoanauthenticBosnianexpression.The
book extended Grabrijan’s previous discussion concerning the impact of Bosnian
Muslimsculturalpracticesonthetransformationofthetraditionalhouse(changing
‘Turkishness’intogenuine‘Bosnianness’)andpresentedcultureaspowerfulagent
inthereconfigurationsofOttomanarchitecture.
Throughgradualmodificationsandtheevolutionofartisticexperience,Bosnianart
was presented as the embodiment of collective qualities and a reflection of the
society:
He[theBosnianman]makeshispottery,space,cityaccordingtohimself,inhuman
scale, he is not a mystic, but a realist and that is from where all this realistic
architecture [emerges], which is at the same time comfortable, humble and
democratic.89
OnestatementsignificantlyexpandedGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussionof this
art,suggestingthatwhilethisarchitectureandartwasbuiltby‘localartisans’using
88Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.12.89Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.13.
Chapter4
171
thelocalmaterials,theworkwasconducted‘byDalmatianstonemasons–i.e.,all
our[Yugoslav]people’.90
By including Croatian/Dalmatian stone masons in their consideration of Bosnian
identity, the authors confirmed their interest in going beyond a model of nation
framedbystrictboundariesofethnicandreligiousbelonging.Finallydismissingthe
validity of a nationalist argument and their own earlier views, which considered
localartonlyinitsrelationstoits‘origins’,theywrote:
It is of secondary importance who sponsored this architecture [at the time] and
whousedit[atthetime].[Whatisimportantisthat]Itcameoutofourpeopleand
wecanconfidentlysaythatitisthepeople’sart.91
Identifying the human values of Bosnian Oriental expression, they presented the
architecturenotasparochialandinwardlookingbutasexpressiveoftheopenand
democratic principles of the new nation of Bosnians. Highlighting the communal
andthecollectivequalitiesofthisart,theywrote:
Allroofsanddoorsofthesehousesarealmostthesame,wecouldcallthemhomes
foranyone,allofthemaredesignedinhumanscale,havegrownoutoftheland...
[thestructuresrepresent]–architecturethatiswarm,naturalandlocallybuilt.92
The balance between universal and local qualities of Bosnian Oriental expression
finallydemonstratedthatthisarchitectureisauniquecontributiontotheworldof
modernity. It was local, produced by all irrespective of their ethnic background,
inclusive of all and the Muslims in particular. The artistic expression of the new 90Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.12.
91Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.12.
92Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.13.
Chapter4
172
socialist society was established in a war that was fought by diverse ethnic and
nationalgroupsofYugoslavia,withallparticipantssubsequentlyhavingequalrights
in the new state. Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s emphasis on collective involvement
recognisedaconnectionbetweenconstructionoftheartsandsociety.
ThequalitiesembeddedinBosnianOriental
Bosnian Oriental, Neidhardt frequently stated, would become like ‘French, Nordic
[Scandinavian],BrazilianandAmericanarchitecture’, in thateach ‘contribute[s] to
theworldarchitecture’.93Neidhardt’sdrawings,suchastheonetitled‘Fromoldto
new pyramid’ [Figure 32], presented Bosnian artistic achievements on equal
standing to those of the rest of the world. The drawing represents the ‘five
millenniums’orhumanarchitecturalachievementsanddevelopments,withBosnia
representedbyAliPaša’sMosque[no.12inFigure32].Sarajevo’smosqueappears
alongsidetheworld’smajorhistoricmonumentssuchas thepyramids (no.1)and
Parthenon (no. 2), and more contemporary achievements such as Sydney Opera
House (no. 22). This confirmed Neidhardt and Grabrijan’s adherence to Riegl’s
notionoftheimportanceofsmallculturesinthedevelopmentofworldart.Italso
presented Muslim architectural heritage as a valuable contribution to collective
YugoslavandBosnianculture.
93J.Neidhardt,‘Putevinacionalnearhitekture’(Pathstonationalarchitecture),NašiDani,November,1954,p.5.
Chapter4
173
Figure 32: Illustration titled ‘From old to new pyramid 5millenniums’. Source: Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural workofJurajNeidhardt’;p.464.
Thedrawingtitled‘Urbanandarchitecturalanalysis’depictedBosniageographically
inthemiddleofYugoslavia,cutintwowithalinerepresentingthereligiousschism
ofChristianityandIslam[Figure33].The‘western’sidewasdefinedbytherational
principles of regularity, symmetry, ‘rigid planning’ and ‘corridorlike’ streets; the
‘eastern’sidebyirregularity,fluidity,organicplanningandintimatespaces.Bosnia,
withits‘inbetween’position,wasshownascapableofnegotiatingalldifferences.
Chapter4
174
Figure 33: Bosnia as a place of negotiations, ‘Urban andarchitectural analysis’. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.322.
Theauthors’ faith in thecapacityofBosnia toaccommodateandmediatevarious
changeswasreflectedinthedrawingtitled‘Threeconceptionsofformingtheroom’
[Figure 34]. Its depiction of a mosque’s spatial transformation into a church and
then a monument to Lenin implied Bosnia’s ability to negotiate significant
ideological transformations.The final transformation, represented inamonument
to Lenin, accommodated the positive values of the two previous transformations,
namely the ‘unity of spatial organisation of a church’ with the ‘human scale’ of a
mosque. The drawing confirmed the importance of communist ideology to
Chapter4
175
Neidhardt’s work, as well as his commitment to the secularisation of socialist
Yugoslavia.
Figure 34: Mosque, church and the monument to Lenin.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.238.
ContributionofBosnianOrientaltoYugoslavia
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’scontributionstartedtogainpublicrecognition.When,in
the 1950s, Bosnia began to occupy a special locus in the emerging ‘Non Alliance’
movement Tito was developing, the Muslim representatives played a significant
role.94InanorganisationthatincludedmanyMuslimsfromIndiaandNorthAfrica,
Tito’sabilitytohaveadelegationmadeupoflocalMuslimswasabenefit.Itwasnot
consideredrelevantthattheMuslimsTitosentasrepresentativestovariousforums
were often Communist Party members who had largely abandoned their religion
during the internal secularisation project. With the small ‘m’ Muslim sense of
religious belonging marginalised, the big ‘M’ Muslim identity that was previously
94 The opportunity Tito found was on a tour in Ethiopia, India and Egypt in 1955. Soon after, Titojoined Nasser and Nehru in constructing the new movement, in which being a Muslim wasconsideredbeneficial.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.196–98.
Chapter4
176
seenasanobstacletogenuineparticipationinthedevelopmentofaBosniannation
wasconsideredanasset.
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sviewsechoedasocialistagendathatsupportedthevision
ofBosniaasamulticultural,secularyetformallynationalculture.Theirarchitectural
endeavours also built upon a growing acceptance of the modernist architectural
agenda promoted in the west. The political changes of 1948 provided a sudden
opening for ‘democratic views’ and the acceptance of ‘individual freedom’ in
architecturaldesign.Theseweretheveryinfluencesthathadbeenstronglynegated
intheearlyyearsofsocialism.95Growingacceptanceofsuchideaswasreflectedin
the selection by the Society of Architects of Yugoslavia of Neidhardt’s work for
inclusion in the International Union of Architects (UIA) exhibition held in Rabat,
Morocco in 1950.96 These designs comprised the antituberculosis hospital in
Travnik (1947), the skiing house (1947) on the mountain of Trebevi [Figure 35],
bachelors’ housing in Zenica, Vareš and Ljubija, workers’ housing in Ljubija, a
95I.Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,1945–1990,(YugoslavArchitecture,19451990),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1991,p.23.ŠtraussitesnumerousinfluencesofLeCorbusier’sandMiesvanderRohe’scontemporarybuildingsonYugoslavarchitects.Referringtobuildingssuchas1953designforArmyPrintingServices(Vojnaštamparija)byarchitectMiloradMacura(ofwhichbuildingcommencedevenbeforeWorldWarTwo);urbanideasembeddedinthedesignofSajmištebyMilovanPantoviorthedesignof‘Hempro’andSocialInsurancebuildingsbyAleksejBrki,ŠtraussuggestsagreaterrecognitionoftheinfluencesofwesternarchitectstoYugoslavcontext,aswellastheacceptanceofarchitecturalexpressionassociatedwiththeInternationalModernism.ForfurtherdiscussionseeI.Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,pp.2333.96 Neidhardt’s work was selected to represent the country where all republics of Yugoslaviapresented their work. The exhibition brochure showed geography, people, folklore, traditionalarchitecture,andhistoricpartsofYugoslavia,andincludedaselectionofmodernbuildings,amongwhichweresomeofNeidhardt’s.Whentheantituberculosishospital inTravnikwasbuilt in1948,the name of the architect was not mentioned in any of the daily papers (Borba, Oslobodjenje);however, three years later the project and the architect were selected to represent of the newYugoslavia.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.311.
Chapter4
177
regulation plan in Zenica (model) and some of his collaborative landscape
architectureprojects.
Figure 35: House on the mountain of Trebevi (1947).Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.279.
By the 1950s Neidhardt’s design projects were starting to materialise, and were
publicly promoted in professional papers. His Sarajevo projects such as the
residentialblocksinDjureDjakoviStreetwerefinalisedandtheMuseumofYoung
Bosniawascompleted.97 In1953,Neidhardtcommencedhis involvementwiththe
large urban development of the new Grbavica residential suburbs. These urban
proposals formed part of the Yugoslav display at the World Fair in Brussels in
1958.98 The ‘selection of Neidhardt’s work in the artistic representation of
Yugoslavia evidenced a significant recognition of his achievements that had gone
unnoticed for many years prior’, commented Neven Segvi in his article ‘The
97KapetanovisuggeststhehousinginDjureDjakovistreetwascompletedin1952–53.Theprojectwasdesignedandcommencedin1947andMuseumofYoungBosniawascompletedin1952.98TheBrusselsWorldFair(Expo58)washeldfrom17Aprilto19October1958.ItwasthefirstmajorWorldFairafterWorldWarTwo.
Chapter4
178
creative forces in the architecture of FRY [Federative Republic of Yugoslavia]’.99
Published in a professional journal of the branch of the Society of Architects and
Engineers of Yugoslavia, the article marked a public rehabilitation of Neidhardt’s
architecturalapproach.100Italsomadeanimpactonhisacademiccareer.
In 1952, Neidhardt’s academic career started with his appointment to a lecturer
positionatthenewlyfoundedArchitecturalFacultyinSarajevo.101In1953,hewas
promotedtoassociateprofessor,andin1962becameafullprofessoratthesame
institution. A series of high socialist awards followed: in 1959–60, Neidhardt
receivedOrdenRada(MedaloftheWork),asignificantaward;in1963,hebecame
amemberoftheAcademyofArtandScienceofYugoslavia(artsection);in1964,he
wasarecipientoftheprestigioussocialist27thJulyAward;andin1965arecipient
of the City Award for his work on Sarajevo. While it is not feasible to list the
numerousarticlesindailyandprofessionaljournalsthatwerepublishedthroughout
Neidhardt’scareer, it isworthmentioningthathe initiatedapublicationserieson
Bosnian heritage, which received significant attention. The series included Naše
Starine (OurHeritage)andSlovoGorina (TheGorinLetter),whichpromotedthe
relevance of Islamic cultural heritage and the mediaeval past, respectively, for
modernBosnianculture.102
99N.Šegvi,‘StvaralakekomponentearhitektureFNRJ’,Urbanizam/Arhitektura,nos.5–6,1950,pp.5–40;citedinKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.309.100Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.310.101Thesuggesteddateofhisofficialappointmenttoapositionofassociateprofessorwas22June1953.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.310.102 Among some examples are: J. Neidhardt & D. eli, ‘Stari most u Mostaru’, (The old MostarBridge), Naše Starine, no. 1, 1953, pp. 133–40; J. Neidhardt & D. eli, ‘Rješenje Marindvora INarodneSkupštine’,(ThesolutionforMarindvorandtheNationalParliament),NašeStarine,bookI,1956;‘BaštinaInovo’,(Heritageandnew),SlovoGorina,Stolac,1972;‘Smjenakultura’,(Transition
Chapter4
179
Personally,Neidhardtrevelled inhisnewlydiscoveredpopularityandhisabilityto
publiclypresenthisviews.Hisunconventionalteachingmethods ledto interaction
with students that was not common at the time. When in November 1954
NeidhardtpresentedhisworkattheSecondConferenceofStudentsofArchitecture
ofYugoslaviaunderthetitle‘Directionsinnationalarchitecture–studioworkasthe
most contemporary way of studying architecture’, the audience showed great
enthusiasm.Areviewoftheeventnotedthathereceived‘Longstandingovations
andmanypositivecomments’,followedby‘tearsandwordsofsupportfromother
academicsandstudentsalike.’103
ThepopularityandthegrowingpoliticalsupportforNeidhardt’sapproachdidnot,
however, directly translate into uniform professional support. Particularly
prominent in his criticism was Ivan Štraus, a highprofile Bosnian architect and
architectural critic from Sarajevo, who argued that Neidhardt’s reliance on ‘the
traditional’reflectedan‘uncriticalpromotionofregionalism.’104Štrausarguedthat
by following an approach based on principles of the ‘Bosnian Oriental’ Neidhardt
andhisfollowersnegatedthecreativepoweroftheindividualdesignerandwould
ultimatelyderailwork‘fromthecreativepath.’105Neidhardt’sownresistancetothe
broader influences of the world’s architectural trends, Štraus wrote, made his
ofcultures),SlovoGorina,1973,pp.13–20;‘RekreacijaduhaItijela’,(Recreationofmindandbody),SlovoGorina,1974,pp.25–34.103Neidhardt,‘Putevinacionalnearhitekture’,p.5.104I.Štraus,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture(FifteenYearsofBosnia&Hercegovina’sArchitecture),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1987,p.26.105Štraus,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture,p.26.
Chapter4
180
approach ‘self referential’ and not open to the technological and theoretical
challengesofcontemporarymodernarchitecture.
Searching in his own practice for global values of modern architecture, Štraus
remained a lasting critic of Neidhardt’s focus on traditional and local values.
Neidhardt’s ‘mannerism’, Štraus wrote, became accessible to ‘any individual with
anytechnicaleducation’willingtopromotealanguageofthe‘BosnianOriental’.106
Clearly not supportive of such an approach, Štraus commented that the buildings
designedtoadheretotheapplicationofthe‘Bosnianpoleofmodernarchitecture’
[Bosnian Oriental] became visual reminders of the ‘formalistic approach to
design’.107ŠtrausbelievedthatNeidhardt’sdiscussionof the ‘languageofBosnian
Oriental’ stylised the architectural expression to the point that dampened rather
than enlightened the modern debate. Similar criticism was addressed to the
architectswhoatthetimeadheredtoNeidhardt’s‘Bosnianschool’,or‘Bosnianpole
ofarchitecture’.Nevertheless,Neidhardt’scareercontinuedtoadvance.108
In his numerous academic and civic roles, Neidhardt perceived his work at the
interfacebetweendesignandnationalnarrativemaking.HisimagesoftheBosnian
landscape presented new ways of mapping the terrain and towns of Bosnia. The
106 I. Štraus,NovaBosanskohercegovakaArhitektura1945–1975 (The New Architecture of BosniaandHercegovina1945–1975),SvjetlostOOURIzdavakaDjelatnost,Sarajevo,1977,p.26.107Štraus,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture1970–1985,p.26.108Whilehisinterestandenthusiasmfordesigncompetitionsappearedhighatalltimes,thesuccessofhisentriesvaried. In1945Neidhardtwonthedesigncompetitionforavillage library(1945);his1950s’ proposal for a monument to the Liberation Army on the mountain of Trebevi was alsoawardedaprize,but itwasnotexecuted.From1950to1953Neidhardtparticipated inaseriesofurbancompetitions,whichincludedproposalsforthetownsofKonjic(competitionentry),Trebinje(plan accepted) and Zenica (partially executed). For a comprehensive list of design projects andcompetitionentriesseeKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,pp.647–65.
Chapter4
181
drawingsconnectedtheoldtowns,mostlythoseofOttomanoriginssuchasPoitelj
and Mostar, in a way that disregarded both their real scale and context. The
trajectories in the drawings connected places of tourist interest to those of
historicalrelevance[Figure36].TheapproachaimedathighlightingBosniancultural
diversity, as well as the interconnectedness of the community. The territorial
containmentofthemaps,withinthegeographicalboundariesthatresistednational
divisions, visually confirmed Neidhardt’s belief in the importance of the territorial
integrityofBosnia.Togetherthegeographyandthematerialcultureestablishedthe
boundariesofanewnationofBosnians,peopleunitedbylandandcommonculture
[Figure37].
Figure36:Tourismandrecreationzones.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.484.
Chapter4
182
Figure 37: Map highlighting important architectural sites.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.442.
Conclusion: Architecture is a carrier of the political message of multiculturalBosnia
The inclusion of specifically Muslim references in Architecture of Bosnia and the
WayTowardsModernityopenupthepossibilitytoincorporateMuslimheritagein
the Yugoslav synthesis. Marking a significant shift away from the nationalist
approach, the book presented a view of the Bosnian nation as forged through a
collectiveartisticexpression.
Chapter4
183
As discussed in the following chapter, ultimately Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s
conflation of ethnic identity and religious meaning reflected their ambivalence
about culturally specific architecture in general and Bosnian national identity in
particular.Thesignificanceassignedtotheoldfabricincreatingthenew,however,
demonstrated their genuine interest in connecting Ottoman heritage to the
specificsofBosnianidentitydebates.
Neidhardt presented the principles of Bosnian Oriental as the theoretical
foundation of his architectural approach. The transformation of his theoretical
agendaintoanarchitecturaloneisdiscussedinPartTwoofthisthesis.Chapterfive
presents thespecificnatureof this transformation,andGrabrijanandNeidhardt’s
developmentofanarchitectural‘dictionary’ofBosnianOrientalexpression.Chapter
sixanalysesthedictionary’sapplicationtolargeurbanprojects:thehypotheticalbut
influentialproposalforthedevelopmentofBašaršijaandthewinningproposalfor
theBosniaandHercegovinaParliamentbuildinganditssurrounds.
PARTTWO:Application
Chapter5TransformingtheTheoreticalintoanArchitecturalAgenda:theMahalaandaršijaasArchitecturalPrototypesofBosnianModernExpression
GrabrijanandNeidhardtgroundedtheirdiscussionofBosnianOrientalarchitectural
expressionuponthearchitecturalandspatialprincipleswhichthey identifiedwith
the historic fabric of Bašaršija. Presenting this fabric as inherently rational
pragmatic and modern. The pair connected their architectural discussions to the
values promoted and appreciated by the Yugoslav socialist government. This
chapter argues that such an alignment provided a framework for Grabrijan and
Neidhardttopresentthebuilt fabricofBašaršija’smahalas (residentialarea)and
aršija (businesssector)asappropriatereferencepoints for thedevelopmentofa
uniquelyBosnianmodernarchitecture.Thechapterpresentstheprocessbywhich
Grabrijan and Neidhardt transformed their theoretical concepts into architectural
andspatialconstructs.
TransformingBašaršija:anewapproachtothestudyofaršijaandmahala
In his preface to Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity, Le
CorbusiernotedthatGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sintegrationoftheoldfabricwithin
newarchitecturalexpressionwentagainstthe‘common’andsuperficialmethodof
Chapter5
188
usinga‘varnish’ofoldfabriconnewdesigns.1Theirapproach,hestated,presented
a deeper and more meaningful relationship between old and new in architecture
and urban planning. This method, Le Corbusier claimed, promoted the role of
creativeartsinthedevelopmentofthehumancondition,reflectingthe‘continuity
ofspiritandevolvingchanges’.2Assuch,BosnianOrientalexpression,heconcluded,
was not only a local expression but also a contribution to the development of
modernarchitectureoftheworld.
GrabrijanandNeidhardt,also,perceivedtheirworkasintegraltotheadvancement
ofmodernsocietyanditsartisticexpression.Thegroundingofcontemporaryworks
upon the old fabric of Bašcaršija, they argued, advanced the Marxist ‘dialectical
position’, which promoted the identification and separation of ‘positive from
negative values’.3 Presenting Marx’s concept of history as a record of an ongoing
and everimproving human development, allowed them to argue that the urban
fabricofBašaršijawascleansedof religiousassociationsbythepassageof time.4
Thestudyofthearchitecturalheritagewithhindsightallowedthemtoforeground
the valuable lessons from the past whilst rectifying past mistakes.5 Thus,
1Fullquote: ‘It iseasy,bythismethod, togivebuildingsand interiorsa“vanish”ofculture,whichseems automatically to invest them with a definitive character, a kind of national local, patrioticvalue,etc.Lazyandstupidpeoplearesatisfied[withthisapproach],firstbecausetheymakeagoodbusiness this way, and others because they feel that they have saved themselves any efforts ofthinkingandsearchingfortheirown[architectural]expression’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.6.2Fullquote:‘Thereisstillanothermethod,methodofcontinuity–continuityofspirit,continuityofevolution … Grabrijan and Neidhardt have felt all this. The extraordinarily copious book they arepublishing needs no commentary. These pages will speak eloquently of their sentiments, theirtechnique,theiraesthetics’values,etc.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.6.3Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.4Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.5Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.
Chapter5
189
overcomingtheirinitialhesitationtowardstheOttomanandIslamicpast,expressed
in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, their study of the historic fabric presented in
ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity identifiedBašaršija’sbuilt
fabric as a ‘source for modern architecture’ and ‘inspiration’.6 The approach was
documented through a series of detailed urban maps and elaborated through
individualbuildingsanalysis.7
Unliketheirearliermajorpublication,inwhichBašaršijawasdescribedasa‘bazaar
bijouterie’andnoelaborationofitsworkinglifewaspresented,herethediscussion
centred on its daily life and associated patterns of human labour. A series of
analytical maps documents the diverse crafts that were traditionally practiced in
this precinct. Thesymbols representing oldcrafts are superimposed on the urban
fabric,recallingtheoriginalassociationsbetweencraftguildsandtheurbancontext
[Figure 38]. An extensive list of trades accompanies these maps highlighting the
diversityofcraftgroupsandmanufacturingtechniquesintheoldprecinct.
6 Full quote: ‘Is aršija not a source of modern architecture? Why do we look for inspirationelsewhere,continuouslygettingitfromsecondhandsources,whenweareatitsorigins?’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.14.7Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.
Chapter5
190
Figure 38: Division of precinct based on crafts. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.64.
Theprofessionalandeconomicorganisationoftheguilds,oresnafthatoriginatedin
Ottoman times supported the precinct’s production of goods.8 While essentially
craftassociations,esnafalsohadastrongsocialrole.BehijaZlatar’sstudyof16th
century Sarajevo suggests that more than half of the city’s income earners were
8EsnafisanOttomantermcommonlyreplacedwiththelocalwordceh.ForathoroughdiscussionoftheSarajevo’sesnaforganisation, seeH.Kreševljakovi,Esnafi iObrtiuStaromSarajevu,NarodnaProsvjeta, Sarajevo, 1958, pp. 47–65. The wordesnaf, Kreševljakovi suggests, is the plural of theArabicwordsunufun,whichmeansclass,orderor,broadly,organisation.Forawiderdiscussionofthis organisation, see N. Todorov, The Balkan City 1400–1900, University of Washington Press,Seattle,1983,p.108.
Chapter5
191
members of esnaf, making it the economic support structure of the time.9 As
Sarajevogrewanddemandforproductionincreased–fromsupportingdailylifeto
meeting the more extensive needs of the Ottoman army – the social influence of
the institution of esnaf also amplified. Consequently, over time certain esnaf
became more powerful than others, and certain crafts associated with specific
ethnicgroups.Forexample,thelucrativemetalmakingcraft(kujundjije)wasunder
thecontrolofOrthodoxChristians.Jewsexclusivelyoperatedthesheetmetaltrade,
butwerealsopotmakersandtailors.10Whiletheethnicbasedassociationsinsome
waysthreatenedtounderminetheintegrityandegalitarianvaluesoftheinstitution,
theesnaf’s organisational focus on finance and professional experience offered a
structurethattranscendedethnicity.
Grabrijan and Neidhardt praised the organisation’s success in accommodating a
multiculturalsystemofcraftbasedproduction.They identified72craftsoperating
withintheprecinct,rangingfromswordcutterstosandalmakers[Figure39].Their
maps presented the precinct as an urban whole that almost solely relied on the
establishedrelationshipsandinterdependencyofartisanproduction.
9Zlatar,ZlatnoDobaSarajeva,p.129.10Kreševljakovi,EsnafiiObrtiuStaromSarajevu.
Chapter5
192
Figure 39: Division of precinct based on crafts. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.65.
Providing evidence to the collaborative and cooperative nature of artistic
productionwerethehistoricalphotographs,mostcommonlytakenbyGrabrijan,of
individualstores,storeownersandstreetlifeinBašaršija[Figure40].Thesefocused
on the intimate relationship between owners/sellers and the street, and were
meant tosuggest the important rolecraftsplayed in thedaily lifeof thecity.The
images are suggestive of the authenticity of local labour and production, and the
Chapter5
193
harmoniousrelationshipbetweenthetwo.Furtherbyshowingtheshopownerasa
productmakeraswellasaseller,allowedGrabrijanandNeidhardttodownplaythe
capitalist economic structure that underpinned Bašcaršija’s small scale business.
Indeedtheidentificationofthebusinessownerswiththecraftstheyproduce,and
not the profit they potentially make, provided grounds for reconciling the old
modes of production with socialist values. They particularly emphasised the
efficient nature of specialised labour that, in their reading, was inherent to this
modeofproduction:
Inthearšijatheproductionwasplannedandorganized.Thearšijawasmadeup
ofartisansspecialistseachofwhichwasallowedtomanufactureonlyonedefinite
articlesothatwemightcomparetheworksdoneherewiththatontheassembly
line.Thus,forexample,ariderwithhishorsehadtopass14differenttradesuntil
bothwerecompletelyoutfitted[Figure41].11
Figure40:‘Storebesidestore,handicraftbesidehandicraft’.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.66.
11 Original quote: ‘U aršija mogao je svaki od njih izradjivati samo odredjeni dio cjelokupneproizvodnjetako,daseradovauaršijimoguusporeditisaproizvodnjomnatekuojvrpci.Biloje,naprimjer, za izradu opreme vojnikog konja s konjanikom potrebno etrnaest zanata koji su jedandrugogdopunjavali.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.67&77.
Chapter5
194
Figure41:Bašaršijaasaproductionline.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.66.
ByestablishinganewreadingofBašaršija’sorganisationalstructureasprefiguring
modern production methods, Grabrijan and Neidhardt were providing conceptual
grounds upon which their shifting interest in this old fabric could be validated as
beneficial toboth themulticulturalismof thenewstateand theassociateddesire
forefficientandcollectivesystemsofproduction.
Thevaluesofmonuments:abstraction,lightandscale
Inadditiontomaps,aerialimagesofBašaršijapresentedtheprecinctasacomplex
andhighlyintegratedentity.Thelocationsofthesignificantmonumentsweremade
more legible by superimposed outlines of their parameters. An additional sketch
presented the monuments as freeform objects extrapolated from their
surroundingcontext[Figure42].
Chapter5
195
Figure42:Monumentsandsignificantstructuresoftheoldprecinct. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.61.
It was the modernist fascination with form and the presentation of buildings as
isolated objects that characterised Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s analysis here. As
discussedinchaptertwo,inhisarticle‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’(1936)Grabrijan
argued that the forms of the traditional Bosnian architecture presented
commonalitiesbetweenthelocalexpressionandtheuniversalqualitiesofmodern
architecture.Similarly,Neidhardt’sminingworkers’housing inZenicamadeuseof
the ‘elements’ of the traditional house, extending the argument that the existing
fabricpresentedformalqualitiesinaccordwiththemodernistvocabulary.
Chapter5
196
Buildingonthis,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernitydevotedan
entirechaptertotheanalysisoftheformalqualitiesoftheprecinct’smonuments.
Thesketchofthemainmosque,forexample,highlightedtherelevanceofitsform
tothesearchforauniversallanguageofmodernarchitecture.ReferencingAuguste
Choisy,whoseapproachtoarchitecturalhistoryGrabrijanhadstudied,thedrawing
ofGaziHusrefBeg’smosqueshowsthebuildingslicedopenandseenfromabove
[Figure43].12LikeChoisy’sdrawingofHagiaSophia,Beg’smosquewasshownnot
asamosquebutasadrawingofan‘ideaofamosque’[Figure44].13
Figure 43: Beg’s Mosque, crosssection and axonometric.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.83.
12 Grabrijan was aware of Choisy’s work as he published a textbook titledZgodovinaArhitekture,svobodno poChoisyju (Historic Architecture, Based on Choisy), by University of Ljubljana 1949. A.Choisy,HagiaSophia,fromHistoried’Architecture(1899);reprintedinA.Forty,WordsandBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004,p.23.Thesectionandaplandrawing[Figure43]werecreditedtoanengineer,I.Štrukelj.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.83–84.13Forty,WordsandBuildings,pp.23–24.
Chapter5
197
Figure 44: A. Choisy, Hagia Sophia, from Historied’Architecture (1899); reprinted in A. Forty, Words andBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004,p.23.
Describingthemosque’sinterior,theauthorsfocusedontheformalandstructural
qualities independently from the program. Their emphasis disassociated the
architectural work from its religious function. Further, the formal qualities of the
workwerealignedwithuniversalgeometricprinciplesratherthantheparticularities
ofreligiouspractices:
Thestructureisneitherlargenorsmall.Theinteriorisahollowcubecoveredwitha
calotte. The entrance lies in the longitudinal axis of the structure. The pulpit,
showingcleanstraightgeometrical lines, stands free…Sincethisarthasadopted
manforitsbasicyardstickweshallcallitherehumanscalearchitecture’.14
Presenting the mosque as an abstract form, free from its specific context, the
discussion presented monumentality of this structure as an outcome of diverse
spatial relationships. This mode of analysis continued with reference to other
themessuchasscale:
Beg’smosqueisahugestructurethattowersovertheprecinct.However,despite
itssize,thestructuregivestheimpressionofbeingaccessible.Itriseslikeapyramid
14Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.84.
Chapter5
198
from the narrow streets, from a human scale to the scale of small shops, to the
basilica likehanstructures,uptothesmalldomesoffountains,andstillhigherto
thehugecentraldomeandtheminaret.15
In this reading the monument is presented as worthy of attention because it
exemplifies an ‘accessible’ monumentality, mediating the human scale and the
grand architectural gesture. Free hand interior sketches further elaborate the
interiorspatialsequenceandquality.Aninteriorsketchofthemosque,forexample,
describes the relationship between the sky light apertures and inner curve of the
dome,suggestingthedynamiccharacteroftheinteriorspace.[Figure45]
Figure 45: Lighting in Beg’s mosque. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.87.
The atmospheric quality implied in this sketch is characteristic of the broader
representational techniques employed in the book, whereby descriptive
orthographic drawings are complemented and contrasted with Neidhardt’s free
15Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.83–84.
Chapter5
199
hand sketches. The latter generally offer abstracted renderings of the studied
forms,championingtheircontemporaryrelevance.
This manner of formal abstraction is for instance evident in the sketch of the
mosque’s internal elements, the mihrab (qibla wall) and mimber (pulpit).16
Presentedinthreedimensionsthedrawingsemphasisedtheeffectsofdaylighton
thesearchitecturalelements.Theirpresence isherenotednotfortheir important
roles in religious ceremonies, but for their spatial and atmospheric impact on the
mosqueinterior,oncelit[Figure46].
Figure 46: ‘Mihrab, pulpit, carpet’, abstracting the space.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.284.
Theapproachdeliberatelyavoidedthereligioussignificanceattachedtothesebuilt
components,foregroundinginstead,theaestheticimportanceofabstractbeauty.In
elaboratingtheformalsophisticationofBašaršija’shistoricmonuments,Grabrijan
16AmihrabisawallnicheinamosqueindicatingthedirectionoftheKaabainMecca,andhencethedirection that Muslims should face when praying. Amimber is the pulpit in a mosque where thereligiousleaderImamstands.
Chapter5
200
and Neidhardt’s discussion in this text, displayed a radical departure from their
position in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, where they critiqued the precinct for its
impoverishedstandardsandamenityanddismisseditscontemporaryrelevance.
Thevaluesofthetraditionalhouse(Bosanskakua)
Thediscussionofthetraditionalhousein‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’primarilyrelied
on external sketches of themahala fabric. InArchitectureofBosniaand theWay
Towards Modernity, the representational strategies became more extensive and
detailed.Theyincludedmeasureddrawingsanddiagramsofthelayouts,presenting
theinteriorworkingsascentraltounderstandingthetypology.
In the early years of socialist government Neidhardt avoided making explicit
reference to the traditional house, presenting his mining housing projects not in
relation to the traditionalmodelbut in termsof its capacity toaccommodate the
proletariat. With the official priority for architects described as providing ‘a roof
over the heads’ of the thousands made homeless by war, Neidhardt focused his
attention on developing a standardised housing solution and considered mass
production as the appropriate way of responding to the specifics of the Yugoslav
condition.17 His 1945 design for temporary homes proposed buildings made from
17 Štraus,NovaBosanskohercegovakaArhitektura1945–1975, p. 8. Despite collective efforts, thepostwar urban conditions of Sarajevo were improving more slowly than expected. According to1954censustherewerestillabout2,240familieswiththeirhomesleftinruins,and13,000familieswho livedinunacceptableconditions invariouskindsoftemporaryhousingstock.Asplansforthehousingdevelopmentlagged,atleast10,000familieswereinaneedofappropriateaccommodation.For further discussion see L. Zubevi, ‘Sarajevo (Area, population, employment, communications,traffic connections)’, in M. ankovi (ed.), Sarajevo u Socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji odOslobodjenja doSamoupravljanja,1950–1963(SarajevoinSocialistYugoslaviafortheLiberationtillSelfgovernance,1950–1963,IstorijskiArhivSarajevo,vol.2,Sarajevo,1988,pp.9–23.
Chapter5
201
‘bent cane sticks’, a system that would provide efficient, cheap construction
appropriate for a country founded on guerrilla resistance. Importantly, such
structureswerefreefromhistoricalassociation[Figure47].18
Figure 47: Neidhardt’s proposal for temporary shelters,1945.Source:Kapetanovi, ‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.269.
Presenting a significant shift in attitude, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way
TowardsModernityidentifiedthetraditionalhomeasavaluablemodelforhousing
withinthenewcityfabric.Underaseriesofheadings,includingthe‘Organisationof
dwelling spaces’, ‘Furnishingandutensils’, ‘Sanitary installations’and ‘Methodsof
construction’, the discussion offered the house as a model of rational,
contemporary living. Numerous plans and sections, diagrams and analytical
drawingsidentifiedtherelevanceofthisbuildingtypetothecontemporarysociety.
18Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’.
Chapter5
202
ThepragmaticsofBosanskakua:thesecularvaluesandrationalgroundingofthetraditionalhouse
Referencetotraditionalarchitecturaltypes,GrabrijanandNeidhardtargued,when
approachedthroughdialecticalanalysis,allowedfortheseparationofthe‘positive
fromnegative’andpresentedacriticalconceptualdevicefordevelopingnewideas.
Accordinglyreference to the traditionalhouse, theyclaimed,offeredaproductive
modelforintegratingthepositivevaluesoftheoldfabricandthatofthenew.
Ofcentralimportancewastherecognitionofthehouse’sorganicdevelopment.This
ideawasschematically illustrated inadrawing titled the ‘Embryonicdevelopment
ofanoldhouseinSarajevo’[Figure48].Thehouse’sinternallayoutwaspresented
as an outcome of progressive permutations, from simple to complex basicroom
arrangementsovertime.Usingtheanalogyofstonefruit,NeidhardtandGrabrijan
identifiedthehajat(anteroom)asthepipandthehalvat(room)asthesurrounding
flesh. The terms ‘embryonic development’ in the title of their drawing suggested
that this simple addition of spaces within the house aligned with the biological
developmentofalivingcell.19
19AversionofthisdiscussionwaspresentedinD.Ali,‘Theroleofrationalandscientificargumentsinthepromotionofideologythrougharchitecture’,inF.G.Leman,A.J.Ostwald,A.Williams(eds.)Innovation,InspirationandInstruction:NewKnowledgeinArchitecturalSciences,Proceedingsofthe42ndAnnualConferenceontheAustralianandNewZealandArchitecturalScienceAssociation(ANZASca),Newcastle,Australia,2628November2008,pp.161168.
Chapter5
203
Figure 48: Embryonic development of an old house inSarajevo. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.166.
Thisideawasreinforcedbythedrawing’sfocusonthehouseplanasthekeyfactor
initstransformationfromhajatintohall.Analogoustobiologicaldevelopmentfrom
singlecell to multicell organisms, the simple oneroom traditional house was
transformed into a multifunctional family home, an expansion presented as a
natural and organic process. Framed within an evolutionary paradigm, the
discussionpresentedarationalyetapoliticalinterpretationofthelayout.Thisview,
inturn,offeredanalternativetothemorecommonassociationofthehousewith
thesocioeconomicpositionoftheMuslimelitethathistoricallyinhabitedit.
Chapter5
204
In addition to the lengthy discussion of the functional and pragmatic values of
architectureandbuiltfabric,thechaptersonthehousealsoaddressedculturaland
everyday practices associated with its interiors. A series of scaled drawings
presentedaninventoryofhouseholditemsandutensils[Figure49];groundedinan
anthropologicalapproach,thedrawingshighlightedthedelicateanddetailednature
ofobjectsforeverydayuse.Theirsimplicityoverusefulnessimpliedtheirrelevance
totheneedsofcontemporarydwelling.
Figure 49: Furnishings and utensils of a traditional house.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.204–05.
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of the Bosnian house served to support the
government’s increasing interest inopeningtheprivate interiorsofthetraditional
housetogeneralpublic.20InadeclarationpassedbytheNationalCommitteeofthe
20 Numerous new institutions were established and new laws passed that aimed to preserve andmaintain the nation’s material heritage. In July 1945, the law for the Protection of Cultural and
Chapter5
205
Liberation of Yugoslavia in February 1945, the state claimed responsibility to
‘protect all objects of artistic and scientific value, that included, (but was not
restrictedto)publicmonuments,sculptures,librariesandarchives…’21Byextending
an understanding of heritage beyond major monuments, a context for a more
focusedapproachtoheritageprotectionwasestablished.TheMuseumofSarajevo
(MuzejGradaSarajeva),forexample,whichwasfoundedin1949,defineditsmain
purposeas‘assembling,studying,preserving,publicisingandpresentingthesocial,
economicandculturalhistoryofSarajevo’.22Itsethnographiccollection,comprising
items of ‘domestic, craft and factory production’, was intended to illustrate the
‘materialandspiritualcultureofthecity’.23Withinit,thetraditionalorthe‘Turkish’
house, its interiors and domestic items, played a significant role. The Museum of
Sarajevo includedadioramaofaMuslimfamily ina traditionalhomesetting,and
the ethnological collection of the Zemaljski Museum was updated to include a
similardisplay.PlacedinrelationtogovernmentinitiativesstudiessuchasGrabrijan
andNeidhardt’s,thesedisplaysprovidedthenecessarylinksbetweenthematerials
collected by institutions and their relevance to the contemporary society.
Architecture of Bosnia and theWay TowardsModernity incorporated sketches of
internal layouts of numerous historic homes in the city recently opened to the
NaturalHeritage(ZakonozaštitispomenikakultureandprirodnihrijetkostiuBosnia IHercegovini)wasintroduced.Itwasfollowedbyadditionallawsdesignedtoprotectheritageitemsunderthreat.The Institute for Research and Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Resources startedoperating independently in 1947 (Zemaljski Zavod za Zaštitu I Nauno Prouavanje SpomenikaKulture i prirodnih rijetkosti BiH). Serdarevi,Pravna zaštita kulturnohistorijskog naslijedjaBiH, p.35. Also see N. Šipovac, Kultura u Socijalistikoj Republici Bosni i Hercegovini (The culture of theSocialistRepublicofBosniaandHercegovina),NISPOslobodjenje,Sarajevo,1976.21Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.37.22 Vodi krozMuzej Grada Sarajeva (Guide Through the Museum of the City of Sarajevo), MuzejgradaSarajevo,Sarajevo,1976,p.5.23VodikrozMuzejGradaSarajeva,pp.17–21.
Chapter5
206
public [Figure 50 & Figure 51].24 Combined with an extensive collection of
Grabrijan’sunpublishedprimaryresearchonthetraditionalhouse,thediscussionof
theconceptualandphysicalfoundationsofSarajevo’soldhomesofferedtoprovide
thegroundsfortheirintegrationwithinthenewandmoderncity.
Figure50:Neidhardt’sdrawingofSvrzo’shouse;layoutandcross section. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.183.
24 Vodi kroz Svrzinu kuu (Guide Through Svrzo’s House), Muzej Grada Sarajeva, Sarajevo 1976.Svrzo’shousebecameapropertyoftheMuseumoftheCityofSarajevo(MuzejGradaSarajeva) in1952;by1953itwasopenedtothepublicasamuseumhouse.
Chapter5
207
Figure 51: Inner courtyard and a room in Svrzo’s house(Svrzinakua),openedtothepublicin1953.Source:MuzejGrada Sarajeva, Stambena Kultura Starog Sarajeva, DES,Sarajevo.http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang,en/
Transformingreligiousintosecularvalues
Inanattempt toavoidadiscussionconcerningthe impactof religiouspracticeon
thespatialconfigurationofthetraditionalhouse,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sanalysis
deliberatelypresentedtheinteriorinpragmaticterms.Thisapproachisforexample
evident in their description of treatment and frequency of the ‘sanitary areas’.
Termed abdesthana, these spatial alcoves were associated with each individual
room and traditionally facilitated the Muslim practice of ablution (abdest)
proceeding daily prayers [Figure 52].25 The authors interpreted the multiple
abdesthana as indicative of the superior hygienic nature of the traditional house.
The religious rituals crucial to the logic of this spatial organisation were however
overlooked. Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s desire to retain abdesthana in the
25Inrelationtothediscussionof‘wetareas’GrabrijanandNeidhardtalternatetheterms‘banjica’(usuallyrelatedtoaslightlylargerwetarea)andabdesthana(smalleralcovesusuallywithinalargerroom).
Chapter5
208
contemporary domestic space was described not as the promotion of religious
practice, but as reflective of ‘the culture’s high standard of living’.26 This
interpretation is suggestive of their determined effort to secularise the domestic
house,presentingitasrelevanttotheirvisionforacontemporarysocialisthome.
Figure 52:Abdesthana andbanjica space inSvrzo’shouse.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.138.
A similar approach was taken in relation to the division of internal spaces into
‘men’s and women’s houses’. Contradicting their earlier interpretations of the
femaleinteriorastheexoticcoreofthehouse,theynowattributedthisreadingto
somewhatnaiveanduninformedforeignvisitors.Theywrote:‘Europeansareprone
toregardtheharemasahotbedofcarnalpleasures,whereasinrealityitisnothing
butthatpartofthehousewhich isoccupiedbythefamily’.27Withoutmentioning
thehistoricalorreligiousreasonsgoverningthedivisionofthehousealonggender
26Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.167.27Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.181.
Chapter5
209
lines, the authors reframed the centre core as private family quarters. The
expansive layoutof theground floorwasalsonotpresented inrelationtogender
separation,butratherinitsresemblanceto‘iconsofmodernhousing’[Figure53].28
Figure 53: ‘Modernity of the traditional house’s interior’,erzelezhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.208.
Ultimately it was the framing of the traditional house within the modern and
rationalvaluesofthesocialistgovernmentthatallowedGrabrijanandNeidhardtto
negotiate Muslim culture within the Marxist search for universal culture. Making
use ofGrabrijan’searly writings,whichconnected theBosnianhousewithhouses
designed by Le Corbusier, the book presented numerous drawings that offered
visualproofofthemodernityoftraditionalforms.Thesedrawingsincludedacross
section that identified an efficient passiveventilation system in a generic two
storeyhousedesign;andasketchofthekitchenarea,whichshowedthebenefitsof
goodinternalorganisationtotheoverallefficiencyofthedesign[Figure54].
28Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.183.
Chapter5
210
Figure 54: Modernity of the traditional home: crossventilationandaninteriorofamutvak(women’skitchen)oftheDjerdjelesfamilyhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity,p.208.
The authors’ emphasis on the building type’s organisation, their discussion of its
development and the documentation of the house’s architectural qualities was
presented as a search for universal values in the existing fabric. The relationship
betweenspecificculturalandreligiousvalues–inthiscasetheconnectiontoIslam
andsocialism’s search for itsown ideologicalgrounding–waspresentednotasa
clash of disparate identities, but as what political theorist Ernesto Laclau has
describedas‘apartofanallembracingandepochalstrugglebetweenuniversality
Chapter5
211
and particularism’.29 In this instance, the specific cultural and religious values
attachedtoIslamandtoMuslimidentitywereincludedwithinthebroadersearch
forYugoslavculture.Asaresult,itwasnolongerpossibletodifferentiatebetween
the particularism of traditional architecture and the universalising notions of
modern architecture. However as Laclau has suggested the problematic aspect of
Marxist rejection of the relationship between particularity and universality is that
the ‘universal had found its body, but this was still the body of a certain
particularity’.30Bynegatingthedifferencesbetweentheuniversalvaluespromoted
by socialism and the traditional values embedded in the house, Grabrijan and
Neidhardtuniversalisedthehouse’sparticularity.
TheemotionalvaluesattachedtoBosanskakua
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s analysis of the traditional house also extended to the
impact of this accommodation on the psychological mood of the inhabitant. The
socialistinterestinthistopicwaswellknowntoNeidhardtthroughhisinvolvement
inthepropagandaeffortsof‘manifestation’architecture.ArchitectssuchasHannes
Meyer considered that building is ‘a factor in mass psychology’, and promoted
certainapproaches,suchas intensifyingtherawqualityofmaterials,asnecessary
tacticsusedinadvancingtheMarxistagenda.31InhisÜbermarxistischeArhitektur,
Meyer argued that ‘the elements in a building that have a telling psychological
effect (poster area, loudspeaker, light dispenser, staircase, colour, etc.) must be
29 E. Laclau, ‘Universalism, particularism and the question of identity’, in J. Rajchman (ed.), TheIdentityinQuestion,Routledge,NewYork,1995,p.97.30Laclau,‘Universalism,particularismandthequestionofidentity’,p.97.31K.M.Hays,‘DiagrammingtheNewWorld,orHannesMeyer’s“Scientization”ofarchitecture’,inP.Galison&E.Thompson(eds),TheArchitectureofScience,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1999,p.246.
Chapter5
212
organicallyintegrated’intodesign,asthoseeffects‘accordwithourmostprofound
insightsintothelawsofperception’.32
Inhis1937article‘Turkishhouse, itssourcesandprinciples’,Grabrijanhadargued
fortheconnectionbetweentheemotionalvaluesofpeopleandthespatialqualities
of the houses they inhabit.33 However, in the discussion of this relationship in
‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ he and Neidhardt equated the emotional with the
sexual, presenting the house as an enclosure that encapsulates the man’s power
and his dominance over women. Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards
Modernity underplays these sexual references, returning to Grabrijan’s earlier
position, which highlighted the house’s capacity to care for the emotional well
beingitsinhabitants.
Thedictionary:integratingthepragmaticsandpoetics
Concluding thediscussiononthecapacityof theheritage fabric toprovidespatial
prototypes useful in the development of modern architecture of socialism was a
table of 24 sketches accompanied by individual, succinct and directive captions
[Figure 55]. The table presented a summary of the ‘positive’ values identified in
theiranalysis.34
32Hays,‘DiagrammingtheNewWorld,orHannesMeyer’s“Scientization”ofarchitecture’,p.246.33 D. Grabrijan, ‘Turska kuaOsnove i porijeklo’ (Turkish house, its roots and origins), in D. eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.37–43.34Forarelateddiscussionofethnographicandarchitecturalstudiesofthe‘Algerianhouse’andtheprototypes that emerged, see Z. Çelik, Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations, Algiers UnderFrenchRule,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1997,pp.87–113.
Chapter5
213
Figure 55: The city, aršija, mahala, house, 24 sketches.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.
Chapter5
214
For example, the caption to the sketch no. 1 referred to the openness of the
suburban layouts of mahala, as ‘a neighbouring unit in a contemporary sense’.
Likewise,thecaptiontothesketchno.15referredtothelayoutofinternalspaces
as ‘themeanderandtheatrium–thetwofundamentalforms’.Mostsignificantly,
subtitlessuch‘Koranproclaimedneighbourliness–nexttoAllahthoushalllovethe
neighbour most’ made explicit the capacity of new urban forms to absorb the
former values, thus translating specific references to Muslim families into secular
valuesrelevanttoall.35
Thenotetothedrawingofanurbanmahala layout,thecaptiontothesketchno.
13,explained its relevance in termsof ‘contemporary urbanismofmicro regions’.
The caption to a typical site of suburban blocks stated that the three aspects of
‘house, courtyard [avlija], and garden’ were the ‘most essential elements of
[contemporary] urbanism’.36 These images, and associated short captions,
presented a powerful summary of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s analysis; making
explicit their argument for the contemporary relevance of Ottoman architectural
precedents.
In developing these propositions, Neidhardt proposed a system of modular
elements titled as ‘dictionary’. Unlike the freehand sketches in Figure 55, which
commonly includedthebuilt form,thecontextandtheoccupants,the‘dictionary’
sketchesformalisedtherelationshipbyattachingathreedimensionalshapetoeach
35Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.36Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.
Chapter5
215
concept. The drawing titled ‘Uptodate architectonic dictionary alphabet of the
carpettown’ presented a series of threedimensional building typologies as a
dictionary for new architectural forms [Figure 56]. The intent was stated in the
subtitle: ‘The glossary complied in an attempt to find a new vocabulary based on
theexperienceofthepast’.37
Figure 56: Neidhardt’s ‘Uptodate architectonic dictionaryalphabet of the carpettown’. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.324.
Grabrijan and Neidhardt suggested that using these forms would allow for the
integrationoftheoldfabric’svaluesintonewdevelopments.Thedictionaryoffered
tocaptureanimportantcorrelationbetweenthephysicalqualitiesofrooms–their
depth,shapeandleveloflighting–andtheemotionalandpsychologicaleffectthey
haveonpeople.NeidhardtandGrabrijanarguedthatcombiningdictionaryentries
in mathematical equations could provide successful and useful formulas for new
creations. For example, Neidhardt presented his ‘design idea’ for a pavilion for
37Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.325.
Chapter5
216
picnics, or teferi, as an architectural solution that combined the ‘relationship to
nature’,withthe‘rightofview’,the‘waterasthesoul’anda‘righttosun’.38Many
other architectural propositions presented in the bookArchitectureofBosniaand
theWayTowardsModernitystatedtheirrelianceonsuchformulas.Theuseofthe
‘dictionary’ofBosnianOrientalarchitecturalexpression,theyclaimed,providedfor
thetranslationofcollectivememoryimbeddedintraditionalhousetothemodern
context.
Thedictionaryrepresentedasubstantialextensionof‘elementalanalysis’presented
in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’. As with the ‘elemental analysis’, the dictionary
prototypes reference the formalandaestheticqualitiesofhistoricalbuildings,but
only inthe lattertheauthorsattemptedthemoreambitioustaskof incorporating
the emotional and psychological factors. Their reliance on a seemingly rational
argument in pursuit of emotional, arguably subjective, impact allowed them to
absorblocalIslamicculturalreferencesintothe‘civilisingmission’ofthecommunist
government. Most importantly and despite the authors’ previous insistence on
divesting the urban form of religious meaning, the spatial constructs in the
‘dictionary’ included explicit reference to Islam albeit muted by the rational
framework of thisdevice.Theurban fabricofBašaršija, formerlyassociatedwith
thecolonialandfeudalsociety,becamerepresentativeofthearchitecturallanguage
associatedwiththenewsocialistsociety.
38 The formula was presented as a design idea equalling a series of concepts:IP=ODP+PNV+VDN+PNS+UP+ANDR+KK+KNS+JS. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.333.
Chapter5
217
Demonstrating the capacity of the traditional house to accommodate significant
socialchangeswasadrawingofayounggirlwithinthedomesticsetting[Figure57].
Thesketchshowsagirlathomeholdingaviolin.Thepictureofamosqueonthe
wallandthelatticewindowscreenssuggeststheinteriorofaMuslimhome,butthe
scene is suggestive of a contemporary period. The young girl holds a Western
instrument,andsheseemsfreeandunconstrainedwithin theenvironmentof the
traditional home. In contrast to the static and disengaged images of covered
womenin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,theyounggirlshownhereencapsulatesthe
societalchangebroughtaboutbythenewsocialstructures.
Figure 57: Neidhardt’s illustration of a traditional interior.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.230.
Conclusion:theuniversalandtheparticularoftheBosnianOrientalhouse
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s ‘dictionary’ of Bosnian Oriental architecture referenced
specificformalrelationshipspresentinthetraditionalarchitectureofBašaršija.In
this interpretation the traditional house embodied the socialist objectives of
rationalism and pragmatism. This emphasis informed the systematic character of
Chapter5
218
GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sresearchandresultingpropositions.Whiletheirformula
basedapproachcouldeasilybedismissedasascepticalexercise inadvocatingthe
rational values and scientific approach embraced by the ruling Communist Party,
their integration of emotional values appears as a genuine effort to appeal to a
broadersenseofwellbeingintermsthatwereacceptabletothesocialistideology.
Neidhardt’sintegrationofemotionalvaluesintheotherwiseformulaicapproachto
designfavouredbythesocialistgovernmentshiftedtherelevanceoftheOttoman
built heritage in the creation of a socialist architecture. It provided a model for a
modernarchitecturethatallowedtheIslamicheritagetobepresentandcontribute
toa‘synthetic’Yugoslavia.
The visual and theoretical propositions developed in the dictionary, provided the
foundationforanumberofNeidhardt’sdesignpropositions.Theseincludedurban
proposals for the town of Zenica (1950–54), the development of the suburbs of
Grbavica(1953)andaproposalforamonumenttoMarxandEngels.Inapplyingthe
Bosnian Oriental formulas to the development of the ‘design idea’ for these
projects, the meaning and significance attached to traditional buildings was fully
transformed. Bosnian Ottoman history was no longer placed in the distant and
controversialpast,butwasseenasapowerfultooltocreateanew.
Chapter6TransformingtheCity:theNewaršijaastheThemeParkofSocialismandtheDesignoftheParliamentHousePrecinct
Neidhardt’s active academic and public profile grew with his continuing
involvement in architectural and urban competitions and design proposals. From
thepublicationofArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernityuntilthe
late 1970s he participated in more than 30 large urbanplanning competitions,
almost 100 designs for individual buildings, and more than 20 smallscale design
idea competitions. Neidhardt maintained that the ‘dictionary’ of Bosnian Oriental
design principles underwrote all his architectural propositions, regardless of
differencesinthescale,contextandtypologyoftheprojects.
Thischapteranalysestwoproposalsdevelopedover1950–55:hisproposalforthe
transformation of the business sector of Bašaršija into the ‘New aršija cultural
centre of socialist society’ and his winning design entry for the Bosnia and
HercegovinaParliamentbuildinganditssurrounds.1IntheproposalforNewaršija,
theprinciplesofBosnianOrientalallowed for the reorganisationofexisting fabric
intoasocialistthemepark.InthecaseoftheParliamentprecinctatMarindvor,the
BosnianOrientalwasvestedwiththecapacitytoextendbeyondthespecificsofthe
1BothprojectsareincludedinGrabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity. The project’s title New aršija refers to the business section (aršija) of the Bašaršijaprecinct.
Chapter6
220
old fabric and was presented as an abstract force capable of informing the new
architecture.Thischapterdemonstratesthatbygroundingsuchdiverseprojectson
the principles of Bosnian Oriental, Neidhardt could present this architectural and
cultural expression as capable of negotiating competing national discourses while
contributingtotheconstructionofsocialistideology.
Bašaršijaandsocialisturbanpolices
Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s engagement with the precinct of Bašaršija extended
over 20 years. First discussed by Grabrijan in 1930s and then negotiated by
Neidhardt in his numerous design proposals, the precinct dominated their urban
explorations.Indeed,asalreadydiscussed,theoldtownstructuredthecity’surban
debatesbothasanurbanentityandaplaceofsymbolicsignificance[Figure58].
Figure 58: Bašaršija precinct during the socialist period.Plan indicating the chronological development of theprecinct:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodoxchurch;C) Jewish synagogue; D) Brusa bezistan; E) Rustem pashaBezistan; F) Czar’s mosque; G) Town Hall. Originallypresented in JSAH, vol. 51, no. 1, March 1991, drawingadjusted from the map used in A. Bejti, Stara Sarajevskaaršija–juer,danasIsutra.
Chapter6
221
However, despite the public debates and the controversies that surrounded
Bašaršija, government policies rarely admitted the impact of nationalist tensions
on such city debates. Only a few indirect references indicated the difficulties
Neidhardtfacedinintegrating‘Islamic’culturalreferencesintohisexperimentation
with modernism. His academic assistant Jelica Kapetanovi, for example, briefly
alludestotheproblematicpositionofIslamicculturalheritageinNeidhardt’swork.
DescribinghisongoinginvolvementwithBašaršija,shewrote:
[The] old parts of the city built during the Ottoman period disturbed certain
intellectual circles close to the regime, which basically denied any cultural
specificity or integrity of Bosnia. Their views on buildings such as the mosque,
medresaandTurkishgraveyardsweretaintedbythecenturyoldbitternessagainst
theoldcolonisers.2
It was for those reasons that, initially, the new post–World War Two communist
government perceived the precinct as nothing but a burden of the past, and
proposedplanstodemolishsignificantpartsofBašaršija.In1945,theCityPeople
Committee formed a ‘demolition board’ to take charge of the clearance. It was
responsibleforthedestructionof246smallshopsoveraperiodoffiveyears.With
declarationssuchas ‘ourhistory isnot inoldtimbershutters’, ‘theshopshaveno
2 Original quote: ‘Stari dijelovi grada, izgradjeni u osmanskom periodu smetali su u ono vrijemepojedinim intelektualcima bliskim režimu koji su u osnovi negirao svaku posebnost I kulturniintegritet Bosne. Kroz gledanje na objekte džamija, medresa I turskih groblja provejavala je Ivjekovna gorina porobljenog naroda. Naprotiv, ti objekti zadivljavali su došljake, intelektualce izdrugihsredinakojisusetunastaniliIdjelovali.TakvisubiliVancaš,Pospišil,Grabrijan,Najdhardt…Oni su svaki na svoj nain u ovim bosanskim gradjevinama vidjeli jedan suptilni orijentalni duh Iestetiku, izazov za prouavanje, ouvanje I poticaj za novo stvaralaštvo’. Kapetanovi, ‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.248.
Chapter6
222
historic or cultural value’, and they are only a ‘fire hazard’ and a ‘source of
infection’,thegovernmentjustifiedtheseplanningdecisions.3
Despite efforts by the Institute for the Protection of Natural and Built Heritage
(ZemaljskiZavodzaZaštituSpomenikaKultureIPrirodnihRijetkosti),establishedin
1945tohalttheclearances,significantpartsoftheprecinctweredemolished.4The
individual buildings affected included Gazi Isabegova tekija (a lodge of a dervish
order) and amusafirhana (inn), possibly the oldest structure of its kind in Bosnia
andHercegovina,builtin1462.5ThebuildingofthetekijaintheareaofBendbaša,
which was surrounded by a graveyard that was in use until 1924, was under a
heritage protection order when it was demolished in 1957.6 That is, it was a
3A.Bejti,StaraSarajevskaaršija– juer,danas i sutra (OldSarajevoaršija–Yesterday,Today,Tomorrow),GradskiZavodzaZaštituIuredjenjeSpomenikaKulture,Sarajevo,1969,p.61.4 The demolition process was finally slowed down due to significant protests by prominent cityfigures. While Neidhardt was ultimately among those who objected to the precinct’s destruction,initially he was a ‘committee’ member in charge of the demolition. On the 29 April 1949, acommittee (Komisija pri Gradskoj upravi) was formed to oversee the demolition process. Itsmembersincluded:engineerEmanuelŠamanekDirectorofUrbanDevelopment,engineerMuhamedKadi, professorHamdijaKreševljakovi,DrVlado Jokanovi,DirectorofZemaljski Zavodzazaštituspomenikakulture,engineerJurajNeidhardtandVeraKrstiGaleb.V.KrstiGaleb‘Cultureandartsintheearlyyearsofpostwardevelopment’(KulturaIumjetnostuprvimposlijeratnimgodinama),inM.ankovi,SarajevouSocijalistikoj JugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950,vol.I,p.478.5DemolishedpartsoftheprecinctincludedthesouthsidefromtheareaofSaraitoKazazStreetontheeast,numeroussmallshopsofUpperandLowerTrgovke,almostallshopsthatsurroundedBrusabezistan,theeasternendofKolobarahan,alltheshopsandstoresbetweentheMilosObiliaStreetandSagrdjija.Kostovi,Sarajevoizmedjudobrotvorstvaizla,p.135.6TheofficialwebsiteoftheKomisija/PovjerenstvozaOuvanjeNacionalnihSpomenika(CommissiontoPreserveNationalMonuments)presentsanoverviewofthehistoricaldevelopmentofIsabegovatekija(zawija).In1878,theAustro–Hungarianauthoritiestemporarilybannedthemusafirhana,andthus also the tekija, from operating. The tekija, however, remained in use until 1924, and wasmaintainedfromtherevenueofvakif(patron)FadilpašaŠerifovi.In1941,claimingthatitneededto regulate traffic, the government of the Independent State of Croatia issued plans for the area,proposingthedemolitionofIsabeg'stekija.ThecommencementofWorldWarTwopreventedtheplansbeingcarriedout.In1950,theexecutivecommitteeoftheSarajevoCityPeople'sCommitteeresolvedtocarryoutanewregulatoryplan,whichagainproposedthedemolitionofthetekija.Thisbegan on 23 June 1950 and, despite protests, the tekija was demolished in 1957; its foundationswerefilledwithlayersofsoiltoregulateandleveltheterrain.Thecommissionfoundthatgravesofsomeleadingfiguresfromthetekijawerecoveredbydemolitiondebris,withnorecordofwhether
Chapter6
223
registered monument, documented and described in literature and in receipt of
somefundingforrestorationearlyon.Itsdestructiondemonstratedthelowregard
inwhichheritagewasheldbysocialistauthorities.7
Government efforts to document the heritage precinct and identify structures
worthy of preservation paralleled the demolition. In 1949, the government called
forthesubmissionofafullreportontheprecinct’sstate,whichwouldrepresent‘a
scientificelaborationofSarajevoaršija’.8Withinthiscontextofthegovernment’s
search for the objective significance of individual buildings, Neidhardt’s proposal
begantomakeanimpactonurbanpolices.
In 1950, a new executive body, the City Committee (Gradski Odbor), was
established. Ithad the taskofputting together theoutcomesof thereport intoa
comprehensive study and historical record of the precinct.9 Neidhardt’s previous
plansfortheprecinctprovidedastartingpointforthebroaderdiscussion.By1953,
Neidhardt was in charge of team studying Bašaršija’s urban future. Among the
outcomesofthisstudywasasitemodelthatwasconsidereda‘masterpiece’,andit
becameoneofthecentralexhibits intheSarajevoCityMuseum,whichopenedin
or not the graves had been exhumed beforehand. For more information see the Commission toPreserveNationalMonumentswebsiteat:http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=6&lang=1&action=view&id=2539;http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=25397Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.36.8 In February 1949, an administrative and executive body of the city committee (Gradski Odbor)calledforacompetition.In1951,thecommitteepronouncedHamdijaKreševljakovi’sstudy‘Historyof Sarajevo’ as the winning entry. KrstiGaleb ‘Culture and arts in the early years of postwardevelopment’,inankovi,SarajevouSocijalistikojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950,vol.I,pp.477–78.9 The chapter on the old aršija presented various aspects of the study and included historicalimages, numerous sketches and annotated diagrams of the precinct. Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.60–109.
Chapter6
224
1954 [Figure 59].10 Neidhardt’s ongoing interest in using his studies of the old
precinctinhismodernistendeavoursfinallyappearedrealistic.
Figure 59: Model of Bašaršija. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.98.
Past and present reunited in theNew aršija project: a theme park of socialistBosnia
Designedin1953,theNewaršijaprojectproposedthattheoldOttomanprecinct
beredevelopedintoaregionalculturalcentre.11Neidhardtarticulatedthisproposal
inArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,andreliedonaseriesof
urban strategies that included massive demolition, selective restoration, the
10Themodelwasdonetothescaleof1:100;itcoveredanareaintheoldprecinctof500metresby500metressquare(model50mx50m).ThemodelmakerwasMrHuseinKarišik,withNeidhardtthearchitect in charge. KrstiGaleb ‘Culture and arts in the early years of postwar development’, inankovi,SarajevouSocijalistikojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950,vol.I,p.478.11AversionofthisdiscussionwaspresentedinD.Ali&M.Gusheh,‘ReconcilingcompetingnationalnarrativesinsocialistBosniaandHerzegovina:Bašaršijaproject(1948–53)’,JournaloftheSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.58,no.1,March1999,pp.6–25.
Chapter6
225
introductionofnewstructuresandtheimportationofexistingstructuresfromthe
suburbs.ThemostprominentstructuresofBašaršijawouldbepreserved,agesture
accompanied by the clearing of small surrounding structures. Religious buildings
suchasGaziHusrefBeg’smosque,withthešadrvan(waterfountain),turbe(tomb)
andmedresa (religiousschool),aswellasothersignificantstructureswereamong
thoseselectedforpreservation.Clearedofthesurroundingfabric,themonuments
appearedisolated–objectsseveredfromtheeverydaylifeofthecity.Positionedin
large open areas and parks, these ‘jewels of the past’, as Neidhardt called them,
becamepowerfulremindersofthesuccessiveperiodsofBosnianhistory.Devoidof
their immediate context, the buildings became part of a cultural ‘theme park’
removedfromtheeverydaylifeofthecity[Figure60].
Thevast,openspaceprovidedbytheclearancesallowedNeidhardttoproposenew
connections, linking existing structures to each other as well as to the newly
proposed monuments to socialism. New vistas, configured to emphasise the
multicultural nature of Bašaršija, provided visual clues so that the visitor to New
aršijacouldeasily see thevariedreligious traditions ofBosnia.Within thisurban
framework, the old precinct was presented asa most suitable place for collective
representation:
Thereisnodoubtthatitwouldnotonlybedesirablebutalsofeasibletoremould
the aršija located at the crossroads of the Balkans into the cultural centre of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. In cultural centres, records are kept of traditions which
enlightenfuturegenerationsandrepresentthesuperstructureofacivilization.12
12Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.111&136.
Chapter6
226
Figure60:ViewoftheBašaršijaproposal.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.139.
Consistentwith socialist policy, Neidhardt’s proposal ignored the principles of the
vakuf.13 In 1946, the socialist government, through the Land Nationalisation law
13GaziHusrefbeg’sbezistan(marketplace)wasbuilttotheeastofTašlihan.Thetwobuildingswereconnected,enablingtradersinthebezistantomakedirectcontactwiththemerchantsfromVeniceandDubrovnikbasedintheTašlihan.Thebezistanwasusedforitsoriginalpurposeuntil1879.ThecommencementofWorldWarOneprevented thebuildingbeingentirelydemolished,althoughby
Chapter6
227
(Zakononacionalisaciji),reducedtheauthorityofthevakufandin1958thelawof
Nationalisation of Rental Properties and the development sites (Zakon o
nacionalizacijinajamnihzgradaIgraevinskogzemljišta)madetheauthorityofthis
institutionalmostnonexistent.14ThebreakbetweenOttomanpublicandreligious
institutions and the commercial units that formerly provided financial support
allowedthesebuildingstobecomefinancedandmanagedbythestate.Mostwere
leftunattendedorweresupposedlyhandedovertothestatewillingly.15The1965
Heritage preservation legislation recognised the relevance of ‘scientific and
technicalaspects’ofoldfabric,butreferredonlybrieflyto‘othervalues’,itsstated
main purpose being to protect all ‘important periods of history’, excluding the
Ottomanperiodasirrelevant.16
Referringtothefabricemptiedofitscontentanditscivicpurpose,Neidhardtstated
that ‘Tothesebuildingsof suchhistorical importance,asociopoliticalsignificance
should be added’.17 His utilitarian approach and focus on function echoed the
government initiative of finding new uses for old structures. Numerous historic
structuressuchastheGaziHusrefBeg’shamam (publicbath),mentionedinvakuf
1913muchofithadbeenpulleddowntoallowforthevakuf’sinitiativeofdevelopingtheTašlihansite.www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=285714Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.40.Paradoxically,alackoffundsalsopreventedthemodernisationandupgradingofthevakuf’ssites.Sufferingthisfatewasthe1939design competition for the New Tašlihan (Novi Tašlihan) business building, which remainedundeveloped.15Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.76.16Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.35.17 Original quote: ‘Da bi te muzejske vrijednosti bile što životnije, želimo im dodati još društvenopolitike. Istodobno emo optiki poveati utisak oko Begove džamije i Brusa bezistana saspomenikom NOB. Ne znamo naime zašto ne bi smjestili u aršiju u mauzolej NOB…’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.111&137.
Chapter6
228
documents from 1535, were affected by this approach.18 Despite the hamam
historically providing a sacred space for abdest (ablution), Neidhardt proposed
convertingthebuildingintoawinecellarandrestaurant.Oblivioustotheimpactof
his proposal on the wider urban context, he rationalised his approach by stating
that ‘since the building is slightly sunk into the ground, the rooms on the ground
floorarecoolandwouldlendthemselvestobeingutilizedasacellarorawineshop,
andarestaurant’.19
Furthermore, in the New aršija proposal Gazi Husref Beg’s bezistan became a
national restaurant, the hanikah an ethnographic museum and the medresa a
library[Figure61&Figure62].20NeidhardtalsosuggestedconvertingBrusabezistan
to a museum of the socialist revolution.21 Presenting the picturesque qualities of
the heritage fabric as a rationale for his approach, he stated: ‘In this way, Bey’s
Mosque[asbackground]andtheBrusabezistanwouldmakeafinebackgroundfor
theNationalLiberationMemorial…’[Figure63].22
18Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.76.19Originalquote:‘Zgradajedaklekaostvorenazapivnicuustilunašihvinskihpodruma.Utubisvrhumogli iskoristiti i ‘koje’ na zapadnoj strani, koje se otvaraju prema Begovoj džamiji. Kod takvogpreuredjenjaunutrašnjihprostorijausavremenesvrhe,moralibibudnopaziti,davanjštinaneizgubisvoju historijsku vrijednost’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and theWay TowardsModernity,p.93.20Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.137.21 The selected artwork dealt with the themes of the revolution was done by recognisedrevolutionary artists. It included a sculpture of ‘Mother and child’, a scene from the NationalRevolution War; ‘Ploughing’, a scene from World War Two by Kostovi; ‘Mother’ by Meštrovi;‘Hostage’, a scene from the National Liberation Struggle by Baki; and a relief from the NationalLiberationWarbyMujezinovi.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120–37.22 Original quote: ‘Da bi te muzejske vrijednosti bile što životnije, želimo im dodati još društvenopolitike. Istodobno emo optiki poveati utisak oko Begove džamije i Brusa bezistana saspomenikom NOB. Ne znamo naime zašto ne bi smjestili u aršiju u mauzolej NOB…’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.111&137.
Chapter6
229
Figure 61: The New aršija proposal: view of new artistsstudios above the Old Orthodox church (top and bottomleft);proposedchangeofGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistan intoabar(topright);aninteriorofthenewTownMuseumtobehousedintheformerSheriat(MuslimLaw)School.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.114.
Figure62:InteriorviewoftheproposedadaptationofBrusabezistan. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.
Chapter6
230
Figure 63: Proposal for the New Museum of RevolutionwithintheoldGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistanthatwouldincludeart celebrating ‘Liberation war’. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.126.
In regards to the more incontrovertibly religious buildings such as mosques,
Neidhardt’s proposal for New aršija honoured their original functions, although
theirindependentstatuswouldhavebeenalreadyjeopardisedbysocialistpolicies,
whichinsistedonsupervisionofreligiousactivities.Thegovernment’sstrictcontrol
limited them to the most essential daily services performed exclusively inside
religious buildings.23 The urban isolation proposed in the plan furthered social
segregation of religious communities and enhanced the spatial terms of their
marginalisation.
Aswellasreducingreligiousbuildingstosymbolicmonumentsandtopropertiesof
thestate,Neidhardt’sprojectintroducedanorganisationalprinciplemoresuitedto
23Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.76.
Chapter6
231
socialist rule and a Marxist view of history. Based on the belief ‘that historical
continuity was to be maintained at all costs,’ Bosnian history was portrayed as
linear and progressive, and displayed within Bašaršija’s redefined boundaries.24
Lowscale rows of shops, arcades and walkways wrapped around New aršija,
defining its new perimeter. A monumental portal marked the entrance to the
precinct. Utilising the same design presented in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, the
gateway was a threshold separating the Bašaršija district from the Austro–
Hungarianquarterandopeningvistastoanumberofmonumentsondisplay[Figure
64].
Figure 64: The proposed gate to the Bašaršija precinct.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.109.
24 W. Lesnikowski (ed.), East European Modernism, Architecture in Czechoslovakia, Hungary andPolandBetweenWars,1919–1939,Thames&Hudson,London,1996,p.10.
Chapter6
232
Passage through this gateway would mark the beginning of a journey that
demonstrated Bosnia’s history from prehistoric times through to the Illyrian, the
Bogumil and the Bosnian Oriental, culminating in the socialist era.25 The
representationoftheprehistoric,theIllyrianandtheRomanerasreliedprimarilyon
ancient archaeological finds categorised and displayed in the proposed museums.
These objects included ceramic artefacts, mosaics, costumes and decorative
elements.
The inclusion of Bogumil steci (gravestones) in the New aršija was aimed at
highlightingaperiodrepresentingBosniaasanindependentstate[Figure65].The
BosnianBogumil’sresistancetoboththeCatholicandtheOrthodoxChurchwas,as
discussed,commonlyassociatedwiththerebelliousnatureofBosnians.26
Figure 65: Proposed Bogumil gravestones in the precinct.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113.
25AlthoughthedrawingofBašcaršija’sgatewayappearsasanopenertoNeidhardt’schapterontheNewaršijaproject,heborrowedthe imagefromthepartialanalysishemadeofBašcaršija inthe1940s.26 Referring to the 1950 Paris Universal Exposition, where steci represented the Bosniancontribution,Neidhardtstated:‘theworldwasimpressed[byBogumilheritage]…theyaretheprideof our people … [the] story of our distant and close past’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.112.
Chapter6
233
Contrary to the government position in Neidhardt’s proposal the Ottoman period
was represented through Bašaršija’s mosques, the existing graveyards and other
urbanremnants. Itwas tobeextendedby introducingrestoredresidentialhouses
fromthesuburbsandbytheconservationof isolatedstreetsthatrepresentedthe
craftgroups that onceoccupied Bašaršija. DeconstructingBosnian historic legacy
into its supposed constituent elements endorsed the presentation of different
periodsintheirvaryingrelevancetothecontemporarycontext.
Extending the theoretical and historical discussion presented in other chapters of
ArchitectureofBosniaandthewayTowardsModernity,Neidhardtstated:
We see in this development a consistent historical continuity: some architectural
creations,havingbecomeunnecessaryandantisocial,willgraduallydieout,others
will change as the new ones are being born, because they are demanded by
conditionsandthewayoflife.27
TheperiodofBosnia’shistorythatNeidhardtbelievedtobethemostrelevanttoits
currentstatewasclearlylocatedintheoldprecinct.Withhisfocusonarchitectural
formandnotthehistoriccontext,hewrote:
Feudal social structure [of theOttomans]and thewayof life in those timeshave
given us three fundamental architectural forms, the expression of three various
functions: the ‘ošak [corner]’, the dome and the minaret, i.e. cube, sphere and
cylinder.28
27 Original quote:’ Mi vidimo u tom razvoju logian historijski kontinuitet: neka arhitektonskaostvarenja, kaoekonomskenepotrebna i asocijalna,postepeno izumiru, drugase transformiraju,atrea, sasvim nova, se raaju, jer su uslovljena novin uslovima i nainom života’. Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.322.28 Original quote :’Feudalna društvena struktura I tadašnji nain života dali su nam na poljuarhitektureuglavnomtrielementarnaoblika,kojisuproizašliiztrijurazliitihfunkcija:ošak,kubeimunaru.Daklekocku,polukugluivaljak.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,323.
Chapter6
234
Skilfully using aspects of previous arguments developed in collaboration with
Grabrijan, Neidhardt reminded the reader that it was thisvery similarity between
moderncubicformandOttomanarchitecturethatshouldbeappreciated:
Here we may find origins of cubism, a predecessor to modernarchitecture, since
theseverygeometricalbodiesarethefirstlettersofitsalphabet.Lookingatthese
geometrical figures in nature we automatically recognize that oriental, as well as
modernarchitecture,isbasedonthecontrastbetweentheseverityofgeometrical
bodiesandthegaietyofnature.29
Presented as pure geometric shapes of cubes, spheres and cylinders, the
monumentsofBašaršijawerenolongerconnectedtothepastbutdemonstrated
‘howthepositivevaluesofour inheritance–divanhana (veranda),doksat (porch),
meanderetc.–passimperceptiblyintomodernarchitecture’.30
Having redefined the role and function of existing buildings by stripping them of
historical context, Neidhardt’s plan emphasised new links between isolated
monumentsinBašaršija.ThepresenceofChristianandIslamicreligiousinstitutions
as‘sparklingjewelsofthepast’enabledareadingofBašaršijaasaplacewhereall
culturesand religionswereunited.Numeroussketchesshowedviewsof churches
and mosques in close proximity. The sketch of the entry gate showed the
architecture of Austro Hungarian period located just outside the precinct of
religiousandhistoricmonuments[Figure64].Thesketchesofinteriorsofproposed
29Originalquote:‘Upravonaovommožemotemeljitiporijeklokubizma–likovnogpokretapreteumodernog arhitekture, jer su upravo ova primarna geometrijska tjela poetna slova njegoveabecede.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,323.30Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.330.Neidhardtlinked his interest in a geometric and elemental approach to his time in Le Corbusier’s office. Forfurther discussion of Le Corbusier’s use of primary forms see, A. M. Vogt,LeCorbusier, theNobleSavage,TowardanArchaeologyofModernism,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1998,pp.153–82.
Chapter6
235
restaurant conveniently included the Orthodox Church and the minarets of Beg’s
mosqueinthebackground[Figure66].
Figure 66: Interiors of proposed restaurant ‘Aeroplane’.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.294.
The plans shown and the crosssection through the precinct shown in Figure 67
extend the notion of diversity further. The latter included domestic dwellings,
religiousbuildings,thenewscientificinstitutionsandtheformerTownHall,nowa
library, together highlighting the architectural and cultural diversity of Bašcaršija
withinthecontextofthecity.
Chapter6
236
Figure67:LongitudinalsectionthroughthenewBašaršija.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120–21.
Chapter6
237
Neidhardt’s purpose for including all the main religious institutions was clear. By
extending the area of Bašaršija to the south, he incorporated the existing St
Anthony (Sveti Ante) Catholic Church of the Franciscan Order, located on the left
bankof theriver,31 resulting in theNewaršija featuringbuildingsofall themain
religiousgroups:theJewishsynagogue,theCatholicandOrthodoxchurchesandthe
Muslim mosque. Tourists and visitors would be presented with an exceptional
opportunity to see the places of worship of the main religious faiths – their
proximitytooneanothergivingtheimpressionthatthesocialist‘brotherhoodand
unity’wasbasedonsolidculturalfoundations[Figure68].
31TheoldCatholicchurchinBašcaršijawasburntdowninthefireof1697.TheAustro–HungariansbuiltanewRomanCatholiccathedral.StAnthonyCatholicChurchwasdesignedbyJosipVancašandbuiltintheperiod1911–13outsidetheoldprecinct.ForfurtherdiscussionofthenewcathedralandVancaš’sdesignsseeKurto,‘ArhitekturaSecesijeuSarajevu’.
Chapter6
238
Figure68:PlanoftheNewaršijaproposal:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodoxchurch;C)Jewishsynagogue;D)Catholic churchofStAnthony;E) new graveyard; F) Czar’smosque; G) new public/cultural buildings; H) newresidential area for cultural workers. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.117.
Newaršijaobjectsandmonumentswereintendedonlytobeviewedinrelationto
eachother,orasbackdrops to the newstructures thatwouldbe introduced.The
narrativeestablishedconcludedwith thesocialist revolution, representedthrough
modernstructuresandmonumentsthroughouttheprecinct.Thesignificanceofthe
modernstructureslayintheirauthoritytomarkthebeginningofthesocialisteraas
Chapter6
239
well as their capacity to represent the continuous development of humanity. The
newstructuresincludedanamphitheatre–withastageforfolkloricperformances,
cultural political manifestations and festivals – a cinema and a number of new
museums. The most prominent modern monument was the Academy of Science
andArts[Figure69]:
At the far [western] end of the aršija might be erected, as a symbol of socialist
progress, a tall building which would house either the Balkan Institute or the
Academy of Sciences and Art … [This zone] could represent one of the finest
architecturalachievementsinYugoslavia’.32
Figure69:ProposalfortheAcademyofArtsandSciencesofthePeople’sRepublicofBiH.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113.
According to Neidhardt, the buildings’ designs were all based on the modern
qualitiesof the traditionalhouse, thescale,materials,geometriccompositionand
32 Original quote: ‘Zašto da ne zakljuimo arsiju sa takvim objektom u obliku savremene kuleznanostiismjestimounutraorijentalniibalkanskiinstitutiliAkademijuznanostiiumjetnosti.Kojibise grad [u Jugoslaviji] mogao ponositit takvim profilom koji bi obuhvaao cijelu arhitektonskuklavijaturu BiH’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and theWay Towards Modernity,pp.112&137.
Chapter6
240
rhythmofwhichwereallincludedinthearchitecturaldictionaryofBosnianOriental
expression[Figure70].
Figure 70: Collection of architectural ‘elements’ includessteak; traditional house and mosques’ domes. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.416.
Ultimately, Neidhardt’s Bašaršija project became an architectural synthesis of
nationalist ideologies, where the heterogeneous, progressive and secular Bosnia
confidently represented a socialist Yugoslavia. His modernist reading and the
secularisationofOttomanarchitecturerespondedtotheBosniannationalclaimofa
unique culture, while representing Bosnia as an essentially multicultural state
secureditspositionwithinthebroadersocialistandYugoslavproject[Figure71].
Chapter6
241
Figure 71: Images of New aršija, photomontage. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120&121.
Marindvorprecinctandthedesignofsocialistmodernism
In 1955, a national design competition called for masterplan proposals for the
Marindvor precinct, which included the new National Assembly;33 a team lead by
Neidhardtwonthecompetition.34 It is inthisprojectthathis interpretationofthe
Ottoman legacy as a tool for architecture of the new state is most clearly
attempted.HisproposalforapoliticalandadministrativecentreofSarajevoandthe
Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina established the relevance of the Bosnian
Orientalnotonlytothehistoricalfabricofthecitybutalsotonewarchitecture.
33 An earlier discussion of this project was presented in D. Ali, ‘Sarajevo and the making ofmonuments(1945–1992)’,inM.Ghandour,M.Labban,M.Lozanovska(eds),SitesofRecovery,TheFourth'OtherConnections’Conference,Beirut,Lebanon,October1999,pp.11–18.34Neidhardt’sassistantswerearchitectsD.eli,E. JahiandB.Mileusni,architecturestudentZ.Ugljen,artconsultantR.Miševi,modelmaker I.Komsi.Theprojectwaspublished inGrabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.408–26.
Chapter6
242
Neidhardt’sproposalincludedavastrangeofculturalandpoliticalbuildingsinwhat
appearedtobefreeurbanorganisation.‘Thestructuresare’,hesaid,‘bynomeans
placed on the basis of some rigidprinciples but are laidout in a flexible and free
manner,nowononeside,nowontheother,with theaimofmaking them…the
visual markers of the new areas of Sarajevo.’35 In this seemingly casual spatial
arrangement, the geometric volumes of cubes, spheres and cylinders housed the
new activities of socialism. Uninhibited by the relationship between form and
function, the buildings of the new opera, exhibition centre, radio and television
centre,commercialhotel,departmentstoreandsupermarketsinvokedNeidhardt’s
liking of pure geometrical forms; he stated in a discussion of his design approach
thattheseformswereintendedtorepresentsocialistarchitecturalaspirations:‘The
basicideaoftheprojectisreflectedintheattempttointerconnecttheideological
andurbanconceptsintoanorganicwhole’[Figure72].36
Neidhardt claimed the design as an opening episode representing the new era in
Bosnianurbanism:
Todayweareinafortunatepositionthatitiseasyforustomakeourcontribution
tothealtarofcommunity…Wearenotallowedtotakearest,butmustcontribute
whatexperienceswehave,tothemakingofanewarchitecture.37
He believed the ‘new architecture’ would soon transform the capital, making his
ideasstandoutastemplatesforurbansuccess[Figure73].
35Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.416.36Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.37Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.14–15.
Chapter6
243
Figure 72: Masterplan view of the new Marindvorproposal. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.414.
Figure 73: The map of Marindvor precinct and Sarajevo,drawn by Neidhardt. ‘Dwelling complex in Yugoslav ArmyStreet (196647). First [example] in the history of Sarajevo[where] the principle of a spacious meander street isapplied’. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.408.
Chapter6
244
Historicalcontinuityandprogressivedevelopmentofculture
The site covered a large triangular area, loosely framed on one side by the main
east–west traffic route through the city; on another by the diagonal route that
connectsthelargeresidentialblockcalledMarindvoratoneendandthesiteofthe
new railway station at the other; and on the third side by a street aligning three
existingbuildings:theNationalMuseum,theTechnicalSchoolandthenewrailway
station.38 The brief described the site as a flat area interrupted by a number of
significantpublicbuildingsdatingfromdifferenthistoricalperiods.Thesewerethe
NaturalMuseumbuildings,describedasrepresentingtheneorenaissancestyleand
consideredbythejurytobe‘thebestexampleofthearchitectureof lateAustro–
Hungarianperiod’;theHighTechnicalSchool,representing‘oldurbanbuilding’from
theperiodbetweentheworldwars,andthenewrailwaystation,builtduring the
socialistgovernmenterabyCzecharchitects.39
Thejudgingpanelcomplimentedthewinningschemeonitssuccessfulresolutionof
the relationship between the heterogeneous existing buildings and the proposed
new structures. Neidhardt’s sketches, however, hardly showed the buildings
mentioned by the jury, but rather indicated his interest in relating the site to the
greater city area. Presenting the city in its natural setting along the river valley,
Neidhardt’sdrawingsidentifieddifferentstagesofitsdevelopment.Itseasternend
–markedby theOttomanestablishedBašaršija– is followedby thecentralpart,
developedby theAustro–Hungarians,and then thegrowingnewsocialist suburbs
38KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,p.171.39KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,pp.171–72.
Chapter6
245
thatstretch towards itswesternend.Neidhardt remarked, ‘If thedevelopmentof
Sarajevo isapproachedfromthepointofviewofhistoricalcontinuity then, in the
line of continuity with the ancient town of guilds [Bašaršija] and the later of
capitalists [central part], the construction of Marindvor is an expression of the
socialistsociety’[Figure74&Figure75].40
Figure74:Source: ‘Graphicanalysisof theelementsoftheurban solution’ described through use of keywords (fromtop) ‘zone’; ‘zigzag space’; ‘visual markers of heights’;‘space’; ‘views’, ‘traffic’; ‘historic precinct’; ‘continuity’;‘pedestrian zones’ and patterns’; ‘squares’ and ‘city as acarpet’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.415.
40Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.422.
Chapter6
246
Neidhardt’ssketchespresentedMarindvorandBašaršijainrelationtoeachother,
despitebeingphysicallydistantfromeachotherandseparatedbythelargestpart
ofthecity.‘Marindvor’,hesaid,‘isrepresentingthedemarcationlinebetweenold
andmodernSarajevo’.41Neidhardtdisregardedthecentralpartofthetown,dating
fromtheAustro–Hungariantime,asirrelevantanddescribeditas‘anaberrationin
thedevelopmentof thehistoriccontinuityofBosnia’.42Herestatedhisconviction
thatthehistoricalmooringofhisworkwasintheOttomanarchitecturallegacy
Figure75:Fromtop:urbansolutionforMarindvorprecinct.Bird’seye view of ‘Manifestation square’ and theparliament House building. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.410&413.
41Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.422.42Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.415.
Chapter6
247
ThebuildingoftheNationalAssembly
The belief that the architecture of the new National Assembly building ought to
representallthepeopleofBosniawasatthecoreofNeidhardt’sdesignapproach.
‘[Theassembly]house [isahouse]of thewholenationandassuch itssymbolism
needstoberecognisabletoall’,Neidhardtwrote inhisproposal.43Hisdesignwas
conceived as a cluster of three buildings: the office tower, the ‘freeshaped’
conferencebuildingandthehorizontaladministrativeblock[Figure76&Figure77].
Figure 76: ’Elements’ of the new National Assemblybuildings: tower, atrium, shells, balcony and veranda.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417.
Figure 77: Design for theNationalAssemblyofBosnia andHercegovina.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417.
43KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo;p.175.
Chapter6
248
Thespatialarrangementsofindividualbuildings–theirvolumesandshapesaswell
as the treatment of their elevations – were all based on the relevant historical
precedents.44 Neidhardt wrote, ‘The collection of the old Bosnian architectural
elements:tower,atrium,balcony,pillarhall(triem),cupolasandrusticwallsserved
as basic elements for the composition of the design (in a modern sense)’.45
Accordingly,Neidhardtsuggestedtheprecedentfortheadministrativebuildingwas
in the elongated bay window (doksat) commonly associated with the Ottoman
domesticarchitecture[Figure76].46
Similarly, the freeshaped structure that wrapped around the two central
courtyards extended the associations with domestic architecture, confirming
Neidhardt’sbeliefintheuniqueabilityofSarajevodomesticarchitecturetoharness
an amicable relationship between modern structures and nature. With an aim of
balancing the relationship between private and public, traditional and modern,
Neidhardtproposedthatthetwomeetinghallsbecoveredwithwhathedescribed
as‘mosquelikecupolas’.47Inusingofthedomeonthegroundsofitshistoricusein
coveringthemosque’smostimportantrooms–themarkethall(bezistan)andbaths
(hamam) – Neidhardt confirmed his belief that any religious associations were
merelyamatteroftheBosnianpast.48
44Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.423.45Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.416.46Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.424.47Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.424.48Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.327.
Chapter6
249
Neidhardt’s colleague Džemal eli recorded that the symbolic potency of the
historicformswasnotlostonitsaudience.AppraisingtheMarindvorproposal,eli
wrote:
In addition to the functional spaces required by the brief, the Parliament house
includes a range of symbolic spaces that have emerged from our tradition: the
platform for public speaking in the shape of doksat, modern atrium, domes as
symbols of gathering, and finally the high tower of the new building shaped as
stecakthesymbolofourconsciousnessandresistance,onwhichsurfaceourwhole
historyiswritten.’49
Atentativearrangementofwindingpathslinkedthenewstructuresatgroundlevel.
Thiswasmeanttoencourageviewerstoestablishfreevisualassociationsbetween
the individual structures laid out in this open urban arrangement. Neidhardt’s
monuments to socialism provided opportunities for people to make new
associationsandestablish,hesuggested,‘spirituallinkswiththemonuments’.50He
believed such links would further encourage people to engage with the site, and,
ultimately, ‘lay wreaths at its [the monuments’] pedestal.’51 In return, ‘the light
flooded Monument’, Neidhardt wrote, ‘will symbolise the suffering, struggle and
victoryofasmallnation’[Figure78].52
Figure 78: People viewing the Parliament House building.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.410
49KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,p.364.50Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.51Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.52Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.
Chapter6
250
Following the competition, the realisation of the winning design was indefinitely
postponed.Theauthoritiesjustifiedtheirdecisiononthebasisthattherewasalack
offundstoexecutethescheme,buttheirsubsequentactionssuggesteditwasmore
a matter of Neidhardt’s proposal. Despite the halt the authorities requested a
further development of the master plan, indicating the need for more
administrativebuildings.Thisincreasedratherthanreducedtheproject’sscopeand
wascontrarytotheoriginalcompetitionbrief.Between1955until1976,whenyet
another competition for the National Assembly building was announced,
development and construction in the Marindvor area were focused on individual
buildings only. The Marindvor master plan proposal was never executed in its
entirety. The design of the National Assembly buildings was revisited many times
andwaseventuallybuiltin1974–82toNeidhardt’sdesign.Exaggeratedtothesize
ofahighrisebuilding,this‘newsteak’oftheNationalAssemblybuildingaimedto
promotetheindependenceandstrengthofsocialistBosnia.
Postscript:Bašaršijaasacentreofcollectiveidentity
Despitethedifficultiesandalackofsupportinimplementinghisdesignproposals,
Neidhardt nevertheless played a crucial role in shaping Bašaršija’s future.53 He
assumednumerousprofessionalandcivicduties,whichincludedanadvisoryroleon
thehistoricalstudyofBašaršijabyAlijaBejtithatdefinedtheoverallapproachto
thepreservationoftheprecinct.Titled ‘OldSarajevoaršija,yesterday,todayand
tomorrow’(StaraSarajevskaaršija,jue,danas,sutra),thedocumentpresentedan
53M.umruki, ‘IzradaGeneralnogUrbanistickogPlana’, inM.ankovi,SarajevouSocijalistickojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1950–1963,vol.2,pp.387–559.
Chapter6
251
indepthhistoricaloverviewoftheprecinct, identifying individualmonumentsand
structures worthy of preservation. While from a preservationist point of view
Bejti’s approach was inclusive and recognised the diverse historical periods of
value,itsfocuswasonpreservingthehistoriccoreasdistinctfromenablingsocialist
development.ThisdeniedNeidhardt’svisionfortheviablecontributionofhistorical
builtfabrictothearchitectureofmodernBosnia.54
TheestablishmentofafundforupkeepandrepairsofBašaršija(Fondforuredjenje
Bašaršije) in1963 further isolated theprecinct fromtherestof thecity.By1968
theoldaršijawasputunderaprotectionorderandconsideredan‘urbanwhole’.55
In1975,thatsocalled‘problemofoldSarajevo–aršija’wasconsideredresolved,
theRegulationPlanforOldSarajevoaršijadeclaringtheprecinctanurbanentityof
historicandcultural importance.56Thesubsequenturbanpreservation‘treatment’
andpolicesthatsupportedit,highlightedtheimportanceofBašaršija’sheritage.57
54A.Bejti,StaraSarajevskaaršijajuer,danasisutra,OsnoveISmjernicezaRegenaraciju.Thelistof contributors included Juraj Neidhardt, Husref Redži, Mustafa umruki, Midhat Aganovi,VojislavJoksimovi,SretislavMarjanovi.Theideaspresentedin1969hadbeenalreadypresentedina 1962 analysis of the precinct in ‘Program for urban development of aršija’ (Program zaurbanistikoureenjearšije),alsobyAlijaBejti.55Focusedonmaintainingtheexistingfabric,thefundestablishedthe1878mapofBašaršijaasthereferencepointindefiningtheheritagefabricconsideredofcollectivevalue.Themapalsomarkedtheboundariesofthefund’sjurisdiction.AccordingtothearchivesoftheInstituteforProtectionofMonumentsofCulturefortheCityofSarajevo(ZavodzaZaštituSpomenikaKultureGradaSarajeva)the fund for the protection of Bašaršija was established in 1983. For more detail see Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,pp.56–57.56 Regulation Plan for the Preservation, Conservation, Restoration and Revitalisation of Sarajevoaršija (Regulacion plan sanacije, konzervacije, restauracije I revitalizacije Sarajevske aršija),SkupštinaGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1975.Thelistofprojectarchitectsincludes:AlijaBejti,Džemaleli,RadivojJadri,JurajNeidhardtandHusrefRedži.57M.umruki,‘IzradaGeneralnogUrbanistickogPlana’,pp.387–559.
Chapter6
252
TheconceptualpremisesofNeidhardt’stheoreticalapproachremainedinthenew
governmentpromotedplans.Theseincludedafocusonthehistoricalsignificanceof
structures,thepreservationofindividualhistoricalmonumentsandtherecreation
of an ‘historical’ or ‘period’ appearance in new structures – hence the
reconstruction of small shops based on their 19thcentury appearance and the
enhancement of precinct tourist facilities. With craft production virtually non
existent, shop owners were forced to sell fake copies and craft lookalikes, the
‘bijouterie’ objects of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s first proposal. By the 1970s
Bašaršijawasaplaceoftouristconsumptionandfolklore[Figure79].
Figure79:Sarajevo,apostcard,publishedby‘Svjetlost’.According to Dževad Karahasan, a writer and academic of socialist times, those
urban processes made the built fabric of Bašaršija representative of the socialist
and secular state’s values. Just like in Neidhardt’s 1953 proposal, Bašaršija
represented the merging of the ‘East and West’ or ‘ChristianIslamic’ and was
Chapter6
253
expressive of the broader sociocultural notions of tolerance and pluralism he
assignedtoBosnia.InSarajevo,ExodusofaCity,publishedduringandinresponse
to the 1992–96 war, Karahasan argued that the ‘internalpluralism’ ofBosnia was
reflected in the precinct’s built fabric. He argued that Bašaršija’s limited
geographical size and peripheral position were the ‘enclosures that separate and
protectitfromtheoutsideworld’,allowingittoabsorband‘containallthatexists
aroundit’withinitsboundaries:
At Charshiya, each culture that exists in the mahalas articulates and realizes its
universal component.AtCharshiya theuniversalhumanvalues –whichofcourse
exist in every culture – are being realized. Business goes on there, providing the
economic foundation for existence in this world, and, simultaneously, human
solidarity is being expressed at Charshiya, through communication and openness
among people and toward one another. … For, at Charshiya, people from all the
mahalaspreadaroundit,meeteachother,communicate,cooperate,andliveside
byside.OnebesidetheotheraretheshopsofanewJewfromByelave,aMuslim
fromVratnik,aCroatoranItalianfromLatinluk,aSerboraGreekfromTashlihan…
AtCharshiya,allof themare justpeopleandSarajevans,merchantsandartisans,
notwithstanding all the differences amongst them.This iswhyCharshiya, thecity
center,isatoncethemostinteriorandthemostopenplace.’58
Inthecontextofthe1992–96war’sdestructionofSarajevo,theseveryqualitiesof
Bosnian culture stood in startling contrast to the characteristics of the Serbian
nationalist forces surrounding the city, with their intolerance towards the Other,
theirculturalexclusivityandtheirxenophobia.It isthroughtheaestheticvaluesof
theprecinctandthearchitecturalqualitiesofbuildingdesignsthatthememoryof
cultural interactions, influences and multiple narratives are not only brought
58D.Karahasan,Sarajevo,ExodusofaCity,KodanshaInternational,NewYork,1994,pp.8–9.
Chapter6
254
togetherbuttransfiguredandchangedaccordingtothespecificsensibilitiesofthe
peopleandthetimes.
Chapter7DiscussionandConclusions
Overviewandconclusions
This thesis has argued that Dušan Grabrijan and Juraj Neidhardt’s discussion of
Bosnian Oriental expression emerged from their attempts to find a place for
Ottoman and Islamic heritage in the complex and contradictory nationalist
discoursesinBosniaandYugoslavia.TheirmodelofBosnianOriental,asasynthesis
ofIslamicheritageandmodernism,identifiedarchitectureascapableofnegotiating
diversepoliticalagendas.
Atvariouspoints,thisthesishasargued,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’stheoreticaland
practicalcontributionstoarchitectureandurbanismweremorecloselyconnected
to the political terrain of their times than has been recognised by them or by
commentatorson theirwork.Thegradualbutsignificantchanges in theirattitude
towardsOttomanheritagedemonstratednotonlytheirintrinsicconnectionstothe
broader political scene but their astute awareness of the changing perceptions of
Bosnia’s Islamic past within the discourses on Yugoslav and specifically Bosnian
nationalidentities.
ChaptertwoarguedthatdrawingonhisyearsofstudyinPlenik’sschool,Grabrijan
recognised the importance of cultural uniqueness to the discussion and
Chapter7
256
constructionofvisionsoftheYugoslavnation.Grabrijan’snumerouswritingssought
toarticulate thedistinctivequalitiesof Bosnian architecturalandcultural context,
which he connected to Ottoman/Islamic urban heritage. While his search for a
greater recognition of this heritage was, in some ways, compromised in his and
Neidhardt’s first urban proposal for Sarajevo, presented in ‘Sarajevo and Its
Satellites’(discussedinchapterthree),theirworkcontinuedtobeunderpinnedby
the established importance of this historic fabric to debates on Bosnian identity.
Chapterfourpresentedtheirsubsequentbook,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWay
Towards Modernity, as a recognition and acceptance of the past and as an
articulationofsocialistBosniaasrepresentedintheartsandarchitecture.
Grabrijan’s analysis of the traditional house, chapter five demonstrated, became
centraltothetransformationsofthepair’stheoreticalagendaintoanarchitectural
discourse. Focusing on the Bosnian house, the authors argued that despite its
‘Oriental’ lineage traditional ‘Islamic’ built heritage was a shared heritage that
transcendedethnicandnationalboundaries.Assuch,theirarchitecturalvocabulary
of ‘Bosnian Oriental’, which relied upon their transformation of traditional house
typology, provided the architectural ‘vocabulary’ for Neidhardt’s most important
architectural proposals. The two concluding chapters presented a discussion of
theseproposals:theredevelopmentofBašaršijaandthenewsocialistprecinctof
Marijin Dvor. It was in these projects that Grabrijan and Neidhardt were able to
negotiateandunifytheirurbanandpoliticalviews.
Chapter7
257
Thisthesisarguesthatdespitethedifferencesbetween‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’
and Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity, Grabrijan and
Neidhardt’s two major collaborative publications had much in common. Most
significantly,bothattemptedtoovercomenationalistandMarxistresistancetothe
region’sOttomanpast.Inarchitecturalandurbanterms,bothexploredtheissuesof
creating a modern city and the contribution of heritage built fabric to a new
Sarajevomasterplan.Bothproposednewvisionsofurbanplanningand,likemany
of their contemporaries, promoted industrialisation, efficiency and rational
planning. And both advocated rationalisation combined with the essential human
needs for light, comfort and hygiene as a way towards achieving better living
conditionsforall.1
Nevertheless, the two publications also differed significantly. The inclusion of
specific Bosnian and Muslim cultural references inArchitecture of Bosnia and the
WayTowardsModernitymarkedtherealdifferencebetweenthetwo. Itsignalled
theauthors’awarenessof thepolitical forces that rejectedthe Islamicpastand it
suggestedtheirinvolvementinnationalistdebatesparticularto1950s’Bosnia.Their
discussionof localpeopleandculturehighlightedamoveawayfromstereotypical
viewsthatconnectedMuslimstothegreaterworldofIslamratherthantoaspecific
placeintime.Itfocusedonasearchfortheuniquequalitiesofthelocalpeopleand
culture,andhighlightedtheirroleinadevelopinganinclusiveBosnianculture.This
vision challenged the nationalist views, which promoted an exclusive ethnic
1McLeod’sworkpresentssimilarsuchidealsasunderlyingLeCorbusier’sproduction.M.McLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,PhDthesis,PrincetonUniversity,1985.
Chapter7
258
grounding of the nation. In short, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards
Modernity presented Bosnian Oriental architectural expression as capable of
overcomingethnicandnationaldivisions.
At the same time that Grabrijan and Neidhardt were searching for historical
continuity – for aspects of the past that could inform the modern world – they
disregardedmanysignificantelementsofthatheritage,orelsereinterpretedthem
insuchawayastosupportdominantsocialistdiscourse.Forexample,significantly
secularisedandstrippedoftheirculturalcomplexities,themonumentsandsymbols
that served the needs of communities were appropriated for the purposes of an
ideological agenda. The realignment of built heritage and meaning illustrates that
Nora’sconceptof ‘sitesofmemory’(lieuxdemémoire)are indeedconstructedon
shiftingground.Detachedfromtheorganicandemplaced reproductionofculture
(milleuxdemémoire),Bašaršija’splacesofsignificancehave, throughsubsequent
interpretation, been influenced and informed by diverse ideological positions.
Accordingly, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s interpretation of Bosnia’s Ottoman
architecturallegacybecameapowerfultoolinpromotingthesocialistgovernment’s
aspirationsforasecularised,multiethnicandmultireligioussociety.
Inthiscontext,thereductivenatureofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sformalexpression
anditsfocusonanarchitectural ‘dictionary’highlightedthedifficulties involved in
thesearchforarchitecturalprinciples.TheirworkpresentedMuslimreferencesbut
sought out traces of modernity in that heritage that transcended religious and
Chapter7
259
historicaldifferences.Absorbingthosevalueswithintheirmodernistenterprisewas
aimed at making the modern architecture they were creating even more modern
and universally human.2 By recasting their sources of inspiration in the images of
the architecture they proposed to create, Grabrijan and Neidhardt underlined a
‘disquietingqualityofmodernism’thatJamesCliffordhasreferredtointermsof‘its
taste forappropriatingor redeemingotherness, forconstitutingnonWesternarts
in its own image, for discovering universal, ahistorical “human” capacities.’3
Nevertheless,theirinsistenceonanassociationbetweenaBosnianvernacularand
Ottomanarchitecturallegacyprovidedanopportunity,albeittemporarilyunderthe
socialist government, for that legacy to occupy a space within the broader
architecturaldiscoursesofYugoslavia.
Contribution:changingformationsofidentity
ThisthesisbroadenstheunderstandingofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sworkbeyond
mere appreciation of their formal expression and the modernist agenda. It
demonstratesthat,moresignificantly,thesuccessandacceptanceoftheirideaslay
in their capacity to integrate the political into their architectural agenda. By
positioningGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sworkasamodelofculturewithinapolitical
framework, this thesisemphasises the importanceof ideologicalunderpinnings to
artisticcreation inpost–WorldWarTwoYugoslav.AsstatedintheIntroductionof
this thesis, both Lampe and Wachtel consider the power of cultural models as
2 For further discussion of use of primitive art in the developing modernist agenda see J. Clifford,‘Historiesofthetribalandthemodern’, inK.Pinder(ed.),RaceingArtHistory,CriticalReadingsinRaceandArtHistory,Routledge,NewYork,2002,pp.217–31.3J.Clifford,‘Historiesofthetribalandthemodern’,p.219.
Chapter7
260
central to the construction and deconstruction of dominant political models in
Yugoslavia.4Indeed,WachtelarguesthattheultimatefailureoftheYugoslavstate
wascausedby‘thefailureoftheideaofaYugoslavnationtobindtheSouthSlavs
into a viable nation and state’.5 Further, ‘the collapse ofmultinational Yugoslavia’
andthenationalistattemptstoestablishseparate ‘uninationalstates’,hereasons,
cannotbefoundinpoliticalandeconomiccollapse,butin‘thegradualdestruction
oftheconceptoftheYugoslavnation’.6ThisthesisseesArchitectureofBosniaand
theWayTowardsModernityasanattempt,througharchitecturalandurbanvision,
to presentBosnian cultural identity as anaddition to Yugoslav aspirations, not an
aberrationofthem.
The discussion extends upon post1992–96 scholarly efforts, such as those
presentedbyButurovi.InadditiontoherstudyofDizdar’spoetry,whichidentified
Bosnia’s pluralistic identity as an alternative to nationalist divisions, Buturovi’s
analysis of the wellknown novel Dervish and Death reveals the complex
transformations of Islamic identity in the years of the socialist Yugoslav
government.7ItdemonstratesthatdespitetheproblemsembeddedinBosnia’slack
of a unified national identity, historically ‘the sentiments of group belonging in
4Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry;andWachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation.5Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.5.6Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.5.7 Buturovi, ‘National quest and the anguish of salvation: Bosnian Muslim identity in MešaSelimovi’sDervishandDeath’;Buturovi,StoneSpeaker;andButurovi,‘ProducingandannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’.
Chapter7
261
BosniaHercegovina have neither been rigid nor inflammatory as their war image
suggested’.8
Operating in the same moment of Yugoslav socialism as the writers Buturovi
investigated, Grabrijan and Neidhardt explored the embedded tensions between
cultural practices and institutional demands in Bosnia. Their model of Bosnian
Oriental,Ihaveargued,offeredtoprovideavisionofculturebasedonacollective
andsecularBosnia,notonindividualethnicgroups.Bytheirownadmissionandby
the perception of others, they were modern architects whose interest was not in
creating national but international modern architecture. But nevertheless their
workpresentedapowerfulvehicleforthesearchforselfhoodintheBosnianpast,
presentand future.Bycontextualising theircontribution to thegrowingdiscourse
onmodernarchitecture,Ihaveinthisthesisshownthesignificantrolearchitecture
playsinconstructingnationalidentity.Likeotherculturalproducers,Grabrijanand
Neidhardtconsideredlocalhistoricalconditionsintermsoftheirpotentialtodefine
auniqueplaceforBosniawithinthelargerwholeofYugoslavia.
UnderpinningGrabrijanandNeidhardt’scontributionandsignificancetonarrative
makingofYugoslavidentitieswerethepoliticalandsocialcontextsoftheirtimes.I
haveinparticularexploredtherelationshipbetweentheirwritingsandthespecific
national debates that surrounded the development of the Bosnian community in
Yugoslavia. While Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s vision of Bosnian Oriental included
8Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.6.
Chapter7
262
aspects of identity that Hall has argued are ‘partially constructed in fantasy’, its
contentwasconstructed ‘within[the]discursive,materialandpoliticaleffectivity’
ofthecontextinwhichthetwoarchitectsoperated.9Inaprocessbringingabouta
‘disturbing recognition of the internalised nature’ of identity creation and its
‘relationtotheOther’,GrabrijanandNeidhardtdemonstratedtheimportanceand
limitationsof identity,and thepresenceofwhat isnot ‘naturalbutaconstructed
form(s)ofenclosure’.10
Againstthatbackground,thechangingnotionsoftheOtherandtheideologiesupon
whichtheywereestablishedconfirmHall’sviewsofidentityasconstructed‘within
theplayofpowerandexclusion’.11Thisstudyhasdemonstratedthatunderstanding
the built fabric’s ideological and symbolic role is contingent upon the specific
contextwithinwhichitisformulatedanditsmeaningsarenegotiated.Furthermore,
theBosnianandYugoslavidentitiesthatemergedduring1992–96warconfirmthe
importanceofthetemporalaspectsofidentityconstruction.
Contemporary and future relevance: war destruction and the meanings ofarchitecture
The1992–96destructionofbuiltfabric
Viable future research would relate the conclusions drawn in this thesis to
discussionsthathaveemergedfollowing the1992–96war in formerYugoslavia.A
large number of historians, independent writers and prominent thinkers in the
9Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.10Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.11Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.5.
Chapter7
263
international justice system have shown a conscious ‘link between the systematic
persecutionandexpulsionofethnicandreligiouscommunitiesandthedestruction
oftheculturalandreligiousheritageassociatedwiththetargetedcommunity’.12In
that context, architecture’s association with a particular expression of national
identity is undeniable. Despite Neidhardt’s attempts to separate the built fabric
from an Ottoman political and social agenda, the buildings of Bašaršija and the
NationalAssemblybuildingswereamongthefirsttobeattackedduringtherecent
war in Bosnia by the Serbian nationalist forces that surrounded the city. The
Parliament was attacked in July 1992, during the early days of the Bosnian war
[Figure80].
12 A. J. Riedlmayer (principal investigator), Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia andHerzegovina, 1992–1996, A Postwar Survey of Selected Municipalities, Cambridge, Mass., 2002,Expert report commissioned by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).Riedlmayer’s study of 392 cultural and religious sites in 19 municipalities in Bosnia presentedevidence of widespread ethnic and communal violence resulting in a destruction of cultural andreligious buildings of religious groups of former Yugoslavia. However, within Bosnia the Islamicheritagesufferedthemost.Thefindingsshowthatoutofthe227Islamicmosquesconsidered92%wereheavilydamagedordestroyed.ThesamewastrueforotherIslamicreligiousmonumentssuchasturbesandtekkes.Initsconclusion,thereportstatesthat,‘theBosnianSerbdestructionofIslamicandCatholicculturalheritagesiteswasintentionalandsystematic’.In an attempt to formalise the procedures and position the destruction of cultural and religiousheritagewithinthecontextofwarcrimes,theInternationalCriminalTribunalforformerYugoslavia(ICTY) in The Hague included architectural historian Andras Riedlmayer’s report on the culturaldestruction in Bosnia and Kosovo in the case against the former president Slobodan Miloševi,accusedofwarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity.
Chapter7
264
Figure80:TheParliamentofBosniaandHercegovinaburnsafterbeinghitbytankfireduringthesiegein1992.Source:MikhailEvstafiev(photographer),Wikipedia.
Otherbuildingsandstructuresalsocameunderattack.TheAssociationofBosnian
Architects’catalogueofurbandestruction,publishedduringthesiegeofSarajevoin
1993,showeddamagetoallreligiousbuildingswithinBašaršija.13Whilemost,like
Gazi Husref Beg’s mosque and Bašaršija mosque, came under attack for their
obvious connection with and value to specific ethnic groups, not all buildings
attackedweremarkedbyreligioussymbolism.
13‘Warchitecture’ARCH,MagazineforArchitecture,TownPlanningandDesign,specialissue,no.24,Sarajevo, June 1993, p. 9. The project was undertaken in association with other institutions andbodies,suchastheSpecialUnitforCulturalRescueofCityCivilDefence,thearchitecturalunitoftherepublican headquarters for Protection of Cultural Heritage, the Commission for Cultural HeritageRescueandCityAssembly.The subsequent exhibitions that travelled to numerous European andUScities – presented underslogans such as ‘In circumstances of general destruction’, ‘Genocide and urbicide’, ‘Where life isreducedtoelementaryneeds’,‘Architectsmaintaintheircreativeenergy’and‘Thespiritofthecity’–passionatelypromotedtheroleofarchitectsintheconstructionandprotectionofthecity.
Chapter7
265
Among the most significant structure of collective value to be attacked was the
buildingthathousedBosnianNationalandUniversityLibrary(formerTownHall).14
In August 1992 it was shelled with incendiary grenades until its collection was
destroyedandthebuildingalmostcompletelyburntdown.Thelibrarycontaineda
collection of threemillion items, including 155,000 rare books and manuscripts,
maps, the national archives, and copies of newspapers, periodicals and books
publishedinBosnia.Itincludedonemillionvolumesinthelanguagesofthevarious
culturesthathaveinfluencedBosnia.15Some90%ofthelibrarycollectionwentup
inflamesinwhatRiedlmayerdescribedasthe‘largestsingleactofbookburningin
modern history’.16 As well as attracting significant international attention, the
destruction of the city library had a devastating impact on the people of the
besiegedcity.
Among trajectories to be further explored are the political forces that frame the
rebuildingprocessofwardamagedstructuressuchas theNationalandUniversity
Library. Soon after the attack, the rebuilding of the Town Hall appeared to be a
question of national pride of post1996 Bosnia; its speedy and full reinstatement
wassymbolicofthenation’srecovery.Internalenthusiasmforthereconstructionof
the building, as well as the library collection, was enhanced by the support of
internationalorganisationssuchasUNESCOandtheWorldBank.UNESCODirector 14 For further discussion of the Town Hall’s destruction and rebuilding see D. Ali, ‘Ascribingsignificance to sites of memory, Sarajevo’s Town Hall’, in P. Somma (ed.), AtWarWith the City,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.15B.Bollag, ‘RebuildingBosnianarchitecture’,TheChronicleofHigherEducation,13 January1995,pp.A35–A37;Riedlmayer, ‘Erasingthepast: thedestructionof librariesandarchives inBosniaandHerzegovina’,MiddleEastStudiesAssociationBulletin,vol.29,no.1,July1995,pp.7–11.16 A. Riedlmayer, ‘Killing memory: the targeting of libraries and archives in BosniaHerzegovina’,NewsletteroftheMiddleEastLibrariesAssociation,no.61(MelaNotes),Fall1994,p.1.
Chapter7
266
General Mr Federico Mayor, in his appeal for the reconstruction of the library,
called ‘on all States, international governmental and nongovernmental
organizations, public and private institutions … to participate through voluntary
contributions–intheformoffundsequipmentorservices–inthereconstruction
of the National and University Library in Sarajevo and in the reconstruction of its
collections’.17
The significance of the library in the intellectual and physical context of Sarajevo
seemed to have secured the Town Hall’s place in the city reconstruction over
subsequent years (1996–2000). However, many other public buildings were
restoredwhiletheTownHallwasonlymadestructurallystableandprotectedfrom
theweather.Theexpenseofrebuilding,alackofclarityaboutlegalownershipand
uncertainties about the future use of the Town Hall were all factors that
contributedtothedelay.18
17 Appeal by Federico Mayor, DirectorGeneral of UNESCO for reconstruction of the National andUniversityLibraryofBosniaandHerzegovinainSarajevo,Paris,13April1994.18 The proposals for the new use of the Town Hall varied significantly – retaining the building’sprevioususeas theNationalandUniversity Library; theTownHall; amuseumand library for rarebook collections; a ‘Monument of Interethnic Peace in the World’ etc. UNESCO report, Libraries,UNESCO’sassistance to the NationalandUniversityLibraryofBosnia andHerzegovina, May1998,www.unesco.org.
Chapter7
267
Figure 81: Rubble in Vijenica, former Town Hall andNationalandUniversityLibrarybuilding.Source:D.Ali.
In assessing the cultural significance of buildings demolished, officials from the
World Bank and UNESCO searched for identifiable links between the local
community and the symbolic values of the monuments.19 It is in this regard that
Marian Wenzel, Director of the BosniaHerzegovina Heritage Rescue stated,
‘Vijenicalostbecauseitcouldn’tbealignedwitheithertheMuslimnationalistSDA
party or with Islam itself’.20 Unlike the colonial government of AustroHungarians
and the socialist government of Yugoslavia, the new powers did not perceive the
relationshipbetween the ‘pseudoMoorish’ styleand thecommunities involved in
the political negotiation for Bosnia’s future. Without clear links to local ethnic or
religious groups, international organisations lost interest in the Town Hall and
shifted their support to projects less controversial in their meanings and more
19E.Barry,‘Allthesympathyintheworldhasn’trebuilttheSarajevoLibrary’,Metropolis,June1999.20Barry,‘Allthesympathyintheworldhasn’trebuilttheSarajevoLibrary’.
Chapter7
268
predictable in their financial return. In the absence of a stable political context
withinwhichthebuildings’aestheticscouldgainsignificance,thesymbolicvalueof
the Town Hall and other structures of Bašaršija were questioned. Further
investigations into the historical, political and broader cultural formations that
frame the identity formation will reveal the shifting terrains upon which they are
formulated. An exploration of emerging identities and their transformation in
writingandarchitectureprovidethepotentialforfutureresearch.Whilethisthesis
has added to ongoing debate, the complexities of the issues involved open
opportunitiesforfutureresearch.
Bibliography
Booksandarticles
‘ExpertTestifiestoSystematicDestructionofCulturalMonuments’,CoalitionForInternational Justice, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY),MiloševiTrial,TheHague,CourtRoomOne,Day213,08July2003.
‘The Academy of Science and Arts of Bosnia and Hercegovina marking thecentenaryofthebirthoftheacademicJurajNeidhardt’,catalogue,TheAcademyofScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovinaandtheArchitecturalFacultyofSarajevoUniversity,Sarajevo,2001.
‘Warchitecture’ARCH, Special issue, Magazine for Architecture, Town PlanningandDesign,no.24,Sarajevo,June1993.
‘Warchitecture’, Sarajevo Urbicide, Association of Architects DAS SABIH,exhibitioncatalogue,Sarajevo,June1993
Abu Lughod, J., ‘The Islamic city historic myth, Islamic essence, andcontemporary relevance’, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 19CambridgeUniversityPress,USA,1987,pp.155176.
Ademovi,F.,BašaršijaINjenaZaštita,HronikaaktivnostiFondanarevitalizacijistarog gradskog jezgra of 1893 do 1990 godine (The Heritage Protections ofBašaršija, Documentation of the Institute for Protection and Revitalisation ofOld Urban Precinct from 1893 to 1990), Fond za Zaštitu Bašaršije – IzvršniOdbor,Sarajevo1991.
Ali, D., ‘The role of rational and scientific arguments in the promotion ofideology througharchitecture’, inF.G. Leman, A. J.Ostwald,A.Williams (eds.)Innovation,InspirationandInstruction:NewKnowledgeinArchitecturalSciences,Proceedingsofthe42ndAnnualConferenceontheAustralianandNewZealandArchitectural Science Association (ANZASca), Newcastle, Australia, 2628November2008,pp.161168.
Ali,D.&Bertram,C., ‘Sarajevo:a moving target’,Centropa, JournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.2,no.3,September2002,pp.164176.
Ali D. & Gusheh M., ‘Reconciling competing national narratives in SocialistBosnia andHerzegovina: The Bašaršija Project (194853)’, JSAH, Journalof theSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.58,no.1,March,1999,pp.164176.
Bibliography
270
Ali,D.,‘Grabrijan,RieglandtheproblemofStyle’,Progress,TheProceedingsofthe Twentieth Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians,AustraliaandNewZealand,Sydney,25October,2003,pp.15.Ali,D.,‘Ascribingsignificancetositesofmemory,theSarajevo’stownhall’,inP.Somma(ed.),AtWarwiththeCity,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.
Ali, D., ‘Marindvor precinct and the design of the socialist Modernism’, inContested Terrains, edited by Terrance Mc Minn, Dr John Stephens, SteveBasson,TheProceedingsoftheTwentythirdAnnualConferenceoftheSocietyofArchitectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, Notre Dame University,Fremantle,WesternAustralia,29September2October2006,pp.914.
Ali,D., 'FromOttomanhousetoBosnianstyle:Neidhardt’sdesignforworkers’housinginBosniaandHerzegovina(1939to1942)”,InSite,AnelectronicjournalpublishedbyGraduateStudentsat theFacultyof theBuilt Environment,no.1,March1999.
Ali, D., ‘Changing perspectives of architectural vernacular: Grabrijan andSarajevo’, in R. Blythe, R. Spence (eds.) Thresholds. Papers of the SixteenthAnnualConferenceof theSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,AustraliaandNewZealand,Launceston,September1999,pp.17.
Ali,D.,‘Sarajevoandthemakingofmonuments(19451992)’,inM.Ghandour,M. Labban, M. Lozanovska (eds.), Sites of Recovery, The Fourth 'OtherConnections'Conference,Beirut,Lebanon,October,1999,pp.1118.
AlSayyad,N.,(ed.)FormsofDominance,ontheArchitectureandUrbanismoftheColonialEnterprise,Avebury,Aldershot,England,1992.
Aneli, P., ‘Zaštita spomenika kulture I Narodno Odbori’,Naše Starine, no. 3,Sarajevo,1956.
Anderson, B., Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism,Verso,London,NewYork,1992.
Andri, I. (trans.LenoreGrenoble),ALetterfrom1920,ForestBooks,London&Boston,Dereta,Belgrade,1992.
Ballantyne, A., ‘Space, grace and stylistic conformity: Spatromische,Kunstindustrie, and Architecture’, in R. Woodfield (ed.), Framing Formalism:Riegl’swork,essays,G+BArtsInternational,2001.
Banac, I. & Verdery, K. (eds.), National Character and National Ideology inInterwar Eastern Europe, Yale Center for International and Area Studies, NewHaven,1995.
Bibliography
271
Banac, I.,TheNationalQuestion inYugoslavia,Origins,History,Politics, CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,1984.
Barry, E., ‘All the sympathy in the world hasn’t rebuilt the Sarajevo Library’,Metropolis,June1999.Bejti, A., Stara Sarajevska aršija juer, danas i sutra, Osnove I Smjernice zaRegenaraciju, (Old Town of Sarajevo, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, aDevelopmentProposal),GradskiZavodzaZaštituiUredjenjeSpomenikaKulture,Sarajevo,1969.
Bejti,A.,UliceiTrgoviSarajeva,(StreetsandSquaresofSarajevo),MuzejGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1973.
Bertram, C., ‘Ottoman Sarajevo, the urban history of Sarajevo in the Ottomanperiodandintotheperiodofthedualmonarchy’,unpublishedarticle.
Bertram,C., ‘TheTurkishhouse,aneffortofmemory’,PhDthesis,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,1998.
Besarovi, R., (ed.), Kultura i Umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini PodAustrougarskom Upravom, (Culture and Art in Bosnia and Hercegovina UnderAustroHungarianGovernment),ArhivGrada,Sarajevo,1968.
Besarovi, R., Iz Kulturne Prošlosti Bosne i Hercegovine (1878 1919), (CulturalHistoryofBosniaandHercegovina,18781919),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1987.
Besarovi, R., Iz Kulturnog Života u Sarajevu Pod Austrougarskom Upravom,(Inserts from Cultural Life of Sarajevo Under the Austro–HungarianAdministration),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1974.
Bevan, R., The Destruction of Memory, Architecture at War, Reaktion Books,London,2006.
Blau, E & Platzer, M. (eds.), Shaping the Great City, Modern Architecture inCentralEurope,18901937,Prestel,Munich,1999.
Bollag,B., ‘RebuildingBosnianarchitecture’,TheChronicleofHigherEducation,13January,1995,pp.A35A37.Bozdogan S. & Kasaba R. (eds.), Modernism and Nation Building: TurkishArchitectural Culture in the Early Republic, Studies in Modernity and NationalIdentity,UniversityofWashingtonPress,Washington,2001.
Bozdogan,S., ‘ArchitectureModernismandnationbuilding inKemalistTurkey’,NewPerspectivesonTurkey10,spring,1994.
Bibliography
272
Bozdogan,S.,‘JourneytotheEast:waysoflookingattheOrientandthequestionof representation’, Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 41, no. 4, summer1988,pp.38–45.
Bozdogan, S., ‘More on Le Corbusier’s Orientalism’, Journal of ArchitecturalEducation,vol.43,no.1,fall1989,p.63.
Bozdogan,S.,‘SedadHakkiEldemofTurkey’,Mimar,24,June1987.
Bozdogan, S., Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture intheEarlyRepublic,UniversityofWashingtonPress,Washington,2001.
Brown,C.L.(ed.),ImperialLegacy,TheOttomanImprintontheBalkansandtheMiddleEast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996.
BurkhardtF.,EvenoC.,PodrecaB.,JožePlenikArchitect:1872–1957,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1989.
Burks,R.V.‘NationalismandCommunisminYugoslavia:anattemptatsynthesis’,in H. Birnbaum & S. J. Vryonis (eds.), Aspects of the Balkans, Continuity andChange,TheHague,1972.
Buturovi,A.(trans.byF.R.Jones),StoneSpeaker,MedievalTombs,Landscape,andBosnianIdentityinthePoetryofMakDizdar,Palgrave,NewYork,2002.
Buturovi, A., ‘National quest and the anguish of salvation: Bosnian MuslimidentityinMešaSelimovi’sDervishandDeath’,Edebiyat7,vol.1,YorkUniversitySpring,Toronto,1996.
Buturovi, A., ‘National quest and the anguish of salvation: Bosnian Muslimidentity in ‘Meša Selimovi’s Dervish and Death”’,Edebiyat,7, York University,Toronto,spring1996.Buturovi, A., ‘Producing and annihilating the ethos of Bosnian Islam’,CulturalSurvivalQuarterly,summer1995,pp.2933.ankovi, M., (ed.), Sarajevo u Socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji od Oslobodjenja doSamoupravljanja, 19451950, (Sarajevo in Socialist Yugoslavia, from LiberationWar to the Selfgovernance, 19451950), Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo, Volume I,Sarajevo,1988.
ankovi, M., (ed.), Sarajevo u Socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji od Oslobodjenja doSamoupravljanja, 19501963. (Sarajevo in Socialist Yugoslavia, from LiberationWar to Selfgovernance, 19501963), Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo, Volume II,Sarajevo,1988.
Bibliography
273
Castillo, G. A., ‘Constructing the Cold War, architecture, urbanism and thecultural division of Germany, 19451957’, PhD thesis, University of California,Berkeley,2000.
Castillo,G.,‘SocialistrealismandbuiltnationalismintheColdWar“BattleoftheStyles”’,Centropa,AJournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.1,no.2,2001.
eli,Dž.,GrabrijaniSarajevo,Izabranilanci196342.(GrabrijanandSarajevo,Selected Articles 196342), Prilozi za istraživanje istorije Sarajeva, Godina III,KnjigaIII,MuzejGradaSarajeva,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1970.
Çelik, Z., ‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, Assemblage 17, December1992,pp.5977.
Çelik, Z., Displaying the Orient, Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth CenturyWorld’sFairs,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1992.
Çelik,Z.,TheRemakingofIstanbul,PortraitofanOttomanCityintheNineteenthCentury,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1986.
Çelik, Z., Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations, Algiers under French Rule,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1997.
ernjavski,Z. (curator),Vodikroz Svrzinu kuu (Guide throughSvrzo’s House),MuzejGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1976.
Ciucci,G.,‘TheInventionoftheModernMovement’,Oppositions,Vol.24,Rizzoli,NewYork,1981.
Cohen , J. L., (trans. by S. Sartarelli), ‘Le Corbusier and the mystique of theU.S.S.R.’,Oppositions,no.23,winter1981,pp.84121.
Cohen,J.L.,LeCorbusierandtheMystiqueoftheUSSR,TheoriesandprojectsforMoscow19281936,PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,1992.
Colomina, B. (ed.), Architectureproduction, Princeton Architectural Press, NewYork,1988.
Dal Co, F., Figures of Architecture and Thought, German Architecture Culture18801920,Rizzoli,NewYork,1990.
Dimitrijevi, B., ‘Prilozi o zaštiti graditeljskog nasljedja u Bosni I Hercegovini Ivalorizaciji Bašaršija u Sarajevu u Austro Ugarskom periodu (1878 1918)’, (Acontribution to the protection of historic fabric of Bosnia and Hercegovina andBašaršijaundertheAustroHungariangovernment),Sarajevo,September,1988,unpublishedpaperpresentedataconferenceonthedevelopmentofBašaršija),Sarajevo1988.
Bibliography
274
Djilas, A., The Contested Country, Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution1919–1953,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1996.
Djuri D. & Šuvakovi M. (eds.), Impossible Histories, Historical Avantgardes,Neoavantgardes, and Postavantgardes in Yugoslavia, 19181991, The MITPress,Cambridge,2003.
Donia, R. & Fine, J., Bosnia andHercegovina a Tradition Betrayed, Hurst andCompany,London,1994.
Dreyfus, L., H & Rabinow, P., Michael Foucault: Beyond Structuralism andHermeneutics, (second edition, with an Afterword by and an Interview withMichaelFoucault),TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,1983.
umruki,M.,‘IzradaGeneralnogUrbanistickogPlana’,inM.ankovi,SarajevouSocijalistickojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1950–1963,vol.2,pp.387–559.Ernesto L., ‘Universalism, Particularism and the Question of Identity’, inRajchmanJ.(ed.),TheIdentityinQuestion,Routledge,NewYork,1995.
Etlin, R. A., ‘Le Corbusier, Choisy, and French Hellenism: the search for a newarchitecture’,ArtBulletin,69,no.2,1987,pp.264278.
Forty,A.,WordsandBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004.
Foucault, M. (trans. by Alan Sheridan), Discipline and Punish: the Birth of thePrison,Penguin,Harmondsworth,England,1979.
Foucault, M., (trans. by A.M. Sheridan Smith), The Archaeology of Knowledge,Routledge,London,1989,c1972.
Galison, P. & Thompson, E. (eds), The Architecture of Science, MIT Press,Cambridge,Ma.,1999.Gazihusrevbeg’s vakuf (comp.), Spomenica Gazi Husrevbegove etiristoGodišnjice,(FourHundredYearsofGazihusrevbeg’sVakuf),Sarajevo,1932.Golomstock,I.,TotalitarianArtintheSovietUnion,theThirdReich,Fascist ItalyandthePeople’sRepublicofChina,IconEdition,GreatBritain,1990.
Gombrich,E.H.,TheSenseofOrder,AStudyinthePsychologyofDecorativeArt,CornellUniversityPress,1980.
Grabrijan, D. & Neidhardt, J., ‘Sarajevo i njegovi trabanti’, ArhitektonskourbanistikarazmatranjauoinacrtazaregulacijegradaSarajeva’(SarajevoandIts Satellites, architectural and urban debates presented as a contribution
Bibliography
275
towards the development of the regulation plan of Sarajevo),Tehniki Vjesnik,br.79,Zagreb,1942.
Grabrijan,D.&Neidhardt,J.,ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno(ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity),LjudskaPravica,Ljubljana,1957.
Grabrijan,D.,Plenik inNjegovaŠola (PlenikandHisSchool),ZaložbaObzorja,Maribor,1968.
Grabrijan, D., The Bosnian Oriental Architecture in Sarajevo, with SpecialReference to the Contemporary One, Dopisna Delavska Univerza, Univerzum,Ljubljana,Slovenia,1983.
Hadjijahi,M.,OdTradicijedoIdentiteta,GenezanacionalnogpitanjabosanskihMuslimana,(FromTraditiontoIdentity,TheGenesisoftheNationalquestionofBosnianMuslims),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1974.
Hall,B.,LifeandLetters,‘RebeccaWest’sWar’,TheNewYorker,15April,1996.
Hall,S.‘Whoneeds'identity'?inHall,S&DuGay,P.(eds.),QuestionsofCulturalIdentity,London,Sage,1996.
Handži,A.,PopulationofBosnia in theOttomanPeriod,AHistoricalOverview,ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture(IRCICA),Istanbul,1994.
Handži, A., Studije o Bosni, historijski prilozi iz osmanskoturskog period, (AStudyofBosniaDuringtheOttomanTurkishPeriod),ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture(IRCICA),Istanbul,1994.
Hays,K.M.,‘DiagrammingtheNewWorld,orHannesMeyer’s“Scientization”ofArchitecture’, in Galison, P. & Thompson E. (eds.),TheArchitecture of Science,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1999,pp.233252.
Hirst, P. Space and Power, Politics, War and Architecture, Polity, Cambridge,2005.
Hobsbawm,E.&Ranger,T.(eds.).TheInventionofTradition (1983),CambridgeUniversityPress,Cantoedition1992.
Holzhausen, A. (ed.), La Bosnie Hercegovine, a L’Exposition InternationaleUniversellede1900aParis,ExhibitionCatalogue,Vienne,1900.
Howarth, D. & Torfing, J. (eds.),DiscourseTheory inEuropeanPolitics, Identity,PolicyandGovernance,PalgraveMacmillan,NewYork,2005.
Hozi A., Begi , A., Krzovi I., Radi M. (eds.) Umjetnost Bosne I Hercegovine18941923 (Art of Bosnia and Herzegovina 18941923), exhibition catalogue,UmjetnikaGalerijaBosneIHercegovine,Sarajevo,1978.
Bibliography
276
Imamovi E., ‘Mercator is badly positioned’, in Bosanskohercegovaki DANI,Independentnewsmagazine,specialeditiononurbanismURBICID,June2003.
Ingersoll,R.,‘Lettertotheeditor’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation,vol.42,no.4,1989,p.61
Ingerson, C., ‘Architecture and the scene of evidence’, in Building, Dwelling,Drifting, Migrancy and the limits of architecture, 3rd Other ConnectionsConference,UniversityofMelbourne,June,1997,pp.143149.Isakovi,A.,O‘Nacionaliziranju’Muslimana,101GodinaAfirmiranjaiNegiranjaNacionalnog Identiteta Muslimana (‘Nationalisation’ of Muslims, 101 Years ofAffirmationandNegationofMuslimNationalIdentity),Globus,Zagreb,1990.
Iversen,M.,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1993.
Kapetanovi, J., ‘Stvaralaštvo Arhitekte Juraja Najdhardta’ (The architecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt),PhDthesis,UniversityofSarajevo,1988.
Karahasan, D., Sarajevo, Exodus of a City, Kodansha International, New York,1994.Kari,F., ‘MedjunarodnopravnoregulisanjeVakufskihpitanjauJugoslovenskimzemljama’,Anali,GaziHusrefBegoveBiblioteke,KnjigaIXX,pp.141153.
KarliKapetanovi, J., Juraj Najdhart, Život i Djelo (Juraj Neidhardt, Life andWork),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo1990.
Koštovi, N., Sarajevo, Izmedju Dobrotvorstva i Zla (Sarajevo Between theCharitableandEvil),ElKalemandMerhamet,Sarajevo,1995.
Kraljai,T.,KalajevRežimuBosniiHercegovini18821903(Kallay’sGovernanceofBosniaandHercegovina’,VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1987.
Krei,P.,Plenik,TheCompleteWorks,AcademyEditions,Ernst&Sons,London,1993.
Kreševljakovi,H.,Esnafi iObrtiuStaromSarajevu (EsnafandCraftsof theOldSarajevo),NarodnaProsvjeta,Sarajevo,1958.
Kreševljakovi, H., Sarajevo za Vrijeme Austrougarske Uprave (1878 1918)(Sarajevo During the AustroHungarian Government), Izdanje Arhiva GradaSarajeva,Sarajevo1969.
Kruševac, T., Sarajevo pod Austro Ugarskom upravom 1878 1918 (SarajevoUnder the AustroHungarian Administration 18781918), Izdanje Muzeja GradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1960.
Bibliography
277
Krzovi, I.,ArhitekturaBosne iHercegovine 1878 1918 (Architecture of Bosniaand Herzegovina, 18781918), Umjetnika Galerija Sarajevo, February/ March,1987.
Kurto,N.,ArhitekturaBosneIHercegovine,RazvojBosanskogStila,(Architectureof Bosnia and Hercegovina and the Development of Bosnian Style),MedjunarodniCentarzaMir,Sarajevo,1998.
Kurto, N.,Arhitektura Secesije u Sarajevu (Secession Architecture of Sarajevo),PhDthesis,UniversityofZagreb,Zagreb,1988.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe C., Hegemony & Socialist Strategy: Towards a RadicalDemocraticPolitics,Verso,London,1985.
Lampe, J., Yugoslavia as History, Twice There was a Country, CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1996.
LeCorbusier,(trans.byEdithSchreiberAujame),PrecisionsOnthePresentStateofArchitectureandCityPlanning,TheMITPressCambridge1991.Firstpublishedin1930.
Le Corbusier,TheCityof ToMorrowand ItsPlanning, Dover Publications Inc.,NewYork,1987.
LeCorbusier,TheDecorativeArtofToday,translatedandintroducedbyDunnettJ.I.,TheArchitecturalPress,London,1987.
LeCorbusier,TheRadiantCity,TheOrionPress,NewYork,1967.Firstpublished1933.
Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, Dover Publications, Inc. New York,1986.Firstpublishedin1931.
Lefebvre,H.,TheProductionofSpace,Blackwell,London,1991.
Lesnikowski,W.(ed.),EastEuropeanModernism,ArchitectureinCzechoslovakia,Hungary and Poland Between Wars, 1919 1939, Thames & Hudson, London,1996,p.10.
Lovrenovi, I.,Bosnia:ACulturalHistory,New YorkUniversity Press,NewYork,2001.
Lowenthal, D., The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,1985.
Malcolm,N.,BosniaAShortHistory,Macmillan,London,1994.
Mamuzovi,I.,‘Croatianmetallurgy,past,presentandfuture’,Metalurgija,vol.43,no.1,2004,pp.3–12.
Bibliography
278
[http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf]
Markovi,M.&Petrovi,G.(eds.),Praxis,YugoslavEssaysinthePhilosophyandMethodologyoftheSocialSciences,BostonStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience,D.ReidelPublishingCo.,Holland,1979.McKay, S., ‘Le Corbusier, negotiating modernity: representing Algiers, 19301942’,PhDthesis,UniversityofBritishColumbia,1994.
McLeod, M., ‘Le Corbusier and Algiers’, Oppositions, vol. 19, no. 20, winter/spring1980,pp.5385.
McLeod, M., ‘Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from regional syndicalism toVichy’,PhDthesis,PrincetonUniversity,1985.
Moravanszky,A.,CompetingVisions:AestheticInventionandSocial Imaginationin Central European Architecture, 18671918, The MIT Press, Cambridge,Ma.,1997.
Musabegovi, S., ‘War – the constitution of the totalitarian body’, PhD thesis,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,2004.
Musabegovi,S.,RatKonstitucijaTotalitarnogTijela,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,2008.
Morshed,A.,‘TheCulturalPoliticsofAerialVision:LeCorbusierinBrazil(1929)’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation,vol.55,no.4,May2002,pp.201210.
Nalbantoglu,B.G.,‘BetweenCivilizationandCulture:appropriationoftraditionaldwellingformsinEarlyRepublicanTurkey’,JAE,vol.47,no.2,November1993,pp.6674.
Neidhardt,J.&eli,D.,‘RješenjeMarindvoraINarodneSkupštine’,(AsolutionforMarindvorandtheNationalParliament),NašeStarine,no.1,1956.Neidhardt, J. & eli, D., ‘The old Mostar bridge’ (Stari most u Mostaru),NašeStarine,no.1,1953,pp.133–40.Neidhardt,J.‘Putevinacionalnearhitekture’(Pathstonationalarchitecture),NašiDani,November1954,p.5.Neidhardt, J. ‘Rekreacija duha I tijela’, (Recreation of mind and body), SlovoGorina,1974,pp.25–34.
Neidhardt, J. ‘Smjenakultura’, (Transitionofcultures),SlovoGorina,1973,pp.13–20.
Bibliography
279
Neidhardt, J., ‘Geography of architecture’, 1977, exhibition, brochure, JurajNeidhardt(19011979)inJelicaKapetanovi(curator),UmjetnikaGalerijaBosneiHercegovine,Sarajevo,31October–28November1989.Nora, P., (ed.), Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,1998.
Nora,P.,‘Betweenmemoryandhistory:LesLieuxdeMemoire’Representations,spring,no.26,1989,pp.626.
Ockman, J. (ed.)Architecture,Criticism, Ideology, Princeton Architectural Press,Princeton,1985.
Pacht, O., ‘Art historians and art critics – vi: Alois Riegl’,BurlingtonMagazine,105,1963,pp.188193.
Panofsky,E.,(trans.Northcott,K.&Snyder,J.) ‘Theconceptofartisticvolition’,CriticalInquiry8,Autumn,1981,pp.1733.
Passanti, F., ‘The vernacular, modernism, and Le Corbusier’, JSAH, Volume 56,Number4,December1997,pp.452477.
Pavlov, T., Teorija Odraza, Osnovna pitanja dijalektiko materijalistike teorijesaznanja (Theory of Reflection, The Dialectic and Materialist Grounding ofKnowing),Kultura,1947.
Pekovi, R., Ni Rat Ni Mir, Panorama književnih polemika 19451965 (NeitherWar nor Peace, [Yugoslav] Literary Debates of 19451965), Zavod za izdavakudelatnost‘FilipVišnji’,Beograd,1986.
Pinder, K. (ed.),Raceing Art History, Critical readings in Race and Art History,Routledge,NewYork,2002.
Pinson,M.(ed.)(withaforewordbyRoyP.Mottahedeh),TheMuslimsofBosniaHerzegovina, Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages to theDissolutionofYugoslavia,DistributedForTheCenterForMiddleEasternStudiesofHarvardUniversitybyHarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1994.
Prelovšek, D., Jože Plenik 1872 1957, Architectura Perennis, Yale UniversityPress,NewHaven,1997.
Prelovšek,D.,Kopa,V.,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,DELO,Ljubljana,1992.
Premerl,T.,HrvatskaModernaArhitektura IzmedjuDvaRata (CroatianModernArchitecture Between The Two World Wars), Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske,Zagreb,1989.
Rajchman,J.(ed.),TheIdentityinQuestion,Routledge,NewYork,1995.
Bibliography
280
Raymond, A.,TheGreat Arab Cities in the 16th18th Centuries, An Introduction,NewYorkUniversityPress,NewYork,1984.
Redži,H., IslamskaUmjetnost,(IslamicArtofYugoslavia),Jugoslavija/Beograd,Spektar/Zagreb,PrvaKnjiževnaKomuna,Mostar,1982.
Redži,H.,StudijeoIslamskojArhitektonskojBaštini,(Studiesof[Bosnian]IslamicculturalHeritage),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1983
Regulacion plan sanacije, konzervacije, restauracije I revitalizacije Sarajevskearšije, (Urban Regulation plan for the preservation, conservation, restorationandrevitalisationofSarajevoaršija),SkupštinaGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1975.
Riedlmayer, A. J., ‘Erasing the past: the destruction of libraries and archives inBosniaandHerzegovina’;MiddleEastStudiesAssociationBulletin,vol.29,No.1,July,1995,pp.711.Riedlmayer,A.,(principalinvestigator),DestructionofCulturalheritageinBosniaHerzegovina, 19921996: A Postwar Survey of Selected Municipalities,Cambridge,Massachusetts,USA,(governmentreport),2002.
Riedlmayer, A., ‘From the ashes: the past and future of Bosnia’s culturalheritage’, in Shatzmiller, M. (ed.), Islam and Bosnia, Conflict Resolution andForeignPolicy inMultiEthnicStates,McGillQueensUniversityPress,Montreal,2002.
Riedlmayer,A.,‘Killingmemory:thetargetingoflibrariesandarchivesinBosniaHerzegovina’,Testimonypresentedatahearingof theCommissiononSecurityand Cooperation in Europe, US Government Printing Office, April, 1995,Washington,pp.5152.Riedlmayer,A.,‘Killingmemory:thetargetingofLibrariesandArchivesinBosniaHerzegovina,Newsletter of theMiddle East Libraries Association, no. 61 (MelaNotes),fall1994,pp.14.
Riedlmayer,A.,‘Librariesarenotforburning’,InternationalLibrarianshipandtheRecoveryoftheDestroyedheritageofBosniaandHercegovina,61stIFLAGeneralConference,ConferenceProceeding,August2025,1995.
Roš,S.,Rusan,A.,‘Interview’withZlatkoUgljen,Oris,vol.3,no.12,2001,pp.431.
Rowe,P.,CivicRealism,TheMITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1997.
Said, E. W., Orientalism, Western Conceptions of the Orient, Penguin Books,London,1978.
Bibliography
281
Schwarting, M. J., ‘Postscript’, in B. Colomina (ed.), Architectureproduction,PrincetonArchitecturalPress,NewYork,1988.Starr, S. F. (trans.), ‘Le Corbusier and the U.S.S.R.: New Documentation’,Oppositions,23,winter1981,pp.122137.Schwarzer,M.,GermanArchitecturalTheoryandtheSearchforModernIdentity,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1995.
Šegvi,N., ‘StvaralakekomponentearhitektureFNRJ’ (ThecreativecomponentofYugoslavarchitecture),Urbanizam/Arhitektura,nos.5–6,1950,pp.5–40
Serdarevi, M., Pravna ZaštitaKulturnoHistorijskogNaslijedjaBiH,Nastajanje,Ouvanje,Destrukcija (Legislative Regulations for Cultural and Historic Heritagein Bosnia and Herzegovina, Origins, Protection, Destruction), MedjunarodniCentarzaMir,Sarajevo,1997.
Šipovac,N.,KulturauSocijalistikojRepubliciBosniiHercegovini (CultureoftheSocialistRepublicBosniaandHercegovina),NISPOslobodjenje,Sarajevo,1976.
Štraus,I.,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture(FifteenYearsofBosnian&HerzegovineanArchitecture),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1987.
Štraus,I.,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,19451990(YugoslavArchitecture,19451990),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1991.
Štraus, I., Nova Bosanskohercegovaka Arhitektura 1945 1975 (NewArchitectureofBosniaandHercegovina),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1977.
Tafro, D., ‘Iz istorije zaštite spomenika kulture u Bosni I Hercegovini dooslobodjenja1945’,NašeStarine,III,Sarajevo1956,pp.512.
Teige, K., (Erich Dluhosch trans. and intro.), The Minimum Dwelling, The MITPress,Cambridge,2002.
Todorov,N.,TheBalkanCity,14001900,UniversityofWashingtonPress,Seattle,1983.
Todorova, M., ‘The Ottoman legacy in the Balkans’, in C. Brown (ed.), ImperialLegacy, The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996.
Todorova,M.,ImaginingtheBalkans,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1997.
Tralji, M., ‘Osvrt na Dosadašnju literarturu o Vakufima’ (Review of currentliteratureonvakuf),Anali,GaziHusrefBegoveBiblioteke,KnjigaIXX,171204.
UNESCO report, Libraries, UNESCO’s assistance to the National and UniversityLibraryofBosniaandHerzegovina,May1998,[www.unesco.org]
Bibliography
282
UdovikiSelb, D., ‘Le Corbusier and the Paris Exhibition of 1937, The TempsNouveauxPavilion’,JournaloftheSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.56,no.1,March1997,pp.4262Vancaš, J., ‘Bosansko Narodno Graditeljstvo’ (Bosnian built heritage), TehnikiList(TechnicalJournal),vol.31,no.24,December1928,pp.353–56.Vodi kroz Muzej grada Sarajevo (Guide Through the Museum of the City ofSarajevo),MuzejgradaSarajevo,Sarajevo,1976.Vogt, A. M., Le Corbusier, The Noble Savage, Toward an Archaeology ofModernism,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1998.
Wachtel B. A., Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation, Literature and CulturalPoliticsinYugoslavia,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,Ca.,1998.
West, R.,Black Lamb andGrey Falcon, a Journey Through Yugoslavia, PenguinBooks,NewYork,1994.[Firstpublishedin1941,andrepublishedin1943,1964,1982and1994].
Wiebenson,D.&Sisa,J.(eds.)TheArchitectureofHistoricHungary,Cambridge,Mass.,1998.
Williams,R.,MarxismandLiterature,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1977.
Williams,R.,ProblemsinMaterialismandCulture,Verso,London,1980.
Žanki,I., (ed.),LeCorbusier(CharlesEdouardJeanneret),JourneyToTheEast,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1987.
Zerner, H., ‘Alois Riegl: Art, Value, and Historicism’, Daedalus, Journal of theAmericanAcademyofArtsandSciences,105,winter,1976,pp.177188.
Žižek,S.(aninterview),‘EverythingprovokesFascism’,andHerscher,A.,‘PlenikavecLaibach’,Assemblage33,MIT,1997,pp.5875.
Zlatar, B., Zlatno Doba Sarajevo, (Golden Age of Sarajevo), Svjetlost, Sarajevo,1996.
SelectedbibliographyofGrabrijan’spublications:
ForalistofDušanGrabrijan’sarticlesseealso:eliD.(ed.),GrabrijaniSarajevo,Izabrani lanci 1936 42, Prilozi za Prouavanje Istorije Sarajeva, Muzej GradaSarajeva,GodinaIIIknjigaIII,Sarajevo,1970.
Grabrijan,D.,‘JožePlenik’,Jugoslavija,29.11.1922.
Bibliography
283
Grabrijan, D., ‘Najamna zgrada u Sarajevu’ ([Rental] Dwellings in Sarajevo),Tehniar,no.6,Beograd,1935.
Grabrijan,D.,‘LeCorbusierISarajevouoiizložbenjegovogbivšegasistentaarh.Juraja Neidhardta’ (Le Corbusier and Sarajevo discussion in relating to theforthcoming exhibition of Le Corbusier’s assistant Juraj Neidhardta),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,31.10.1936.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Muslimanska groblja’, (Muslim graveyards), Jugoslovenski list,Sarajevo,14.6.1936;andNoviBehar,no.56,Sarajevo,1937.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Porodina mala kua’ (Small family home), Tehniar, no. 7,Beograd,April1936.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Povodom predstojee izložbe arh. Juraja Neidhardta, kojupriredjuje‘CvijetaZuzori’’(ContemplationontheforthcomingexhibitionofJurajNeidhardta,at‘CvijetaZuzori’gallery),JugoslovenskaPošta,Sarajevo,October,1936.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Sarajevo se izgradjuje Nekoliko polemikih misli o urbanizacijiSarajeva’ (Thoughts and comments on the development of Sarajevo),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,11.4.1936.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Željeznikiproblem,Oastronomskimsumama’,(Aproblemofthe[Sarajevo]railwaystation,aboutexuberantprices), JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,24.6.1936.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Sarajevskiželjeznikiproblem,konkretnipredlog’(TheproblemofSarajevorailwaystation,aproposal),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,1.7,1936.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Arhitekt Juraj Neidhardt, prilikom predstojee izložbe njegovihradova pod pokroviteljstvom ‘Cvijete Zuzori’’ (Architect Juraj Neidhardt,Discussion in relating to forthcoming exhibition of Juraj Neidhardta, at ‘CvijetaZuzori’gallery),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,18.10.1936
Grabrijan, D., ‘Izložba arh. Juraja Neidhardta, tuma izložbenih radova’ (TheguidetoJurajNeidhardt’sexhibition),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,7.11.1936
Grabrijan, D., ‘Kosta Strajni (uoi njegovog predavanja o Meštroviu)’ (KostaStrajni in relation tohisdiscussionofMeštrovi), JugoslovenskiList, Sarajevo,25.11.1936.
Grabrijan, D., ‘SLOVA (misli i uputi)’ (Letters, thought and ideas) Tehniar,Beograd,November/December1936.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Weekend kue (drvene konstrukcije)’ (Weekend houses, timerconstruction),Tehniar,Beograd,1937.
Bibliography
284
Grabrijan, D., ‘Osvrt na arhitektonsku izložbu Juraja Neidhardta na Tehnikomfakultetu u Zagrebu (A review of architectural exhibition of Juraj Neidhardt atTechnicalFacultyinZagreb),GradjevinskiVjesnik,no.1,Zagreb,January1937.
Grabrijan,D.,‘GradjevnaidejaGI’(Thedesignidea,DI),GradjevinskiVjesnik,no.1,Zagreb,January1937.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Arhitektonski problemi modernog teatra, Orijentacija prilikomSarajevske adaptacije’ (Architectural problems of modern theatre, a casestudyofSarajevotheatre),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,6.1.1937.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Proljetna Izložba ‘Cvijeta Zuzori’ Orijentacija jednog arhitekta’(Springexhibitionat‘CvijetaZuzori’,discussionofonearchitect),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,9.5.1937.
Grabrijan,D.,‘TurskakuaOsnoveiporijeklo’(Turkishhouses,theorigins),NoviBehar,Sarajevo,15.7.1937.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Prijedlog za regulaciju Jelaievog trga”’ (A proposal for theregulationofJelaisquare),GraevinskiVijesnik,no.9,Zagreb,1937.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Natjecaj za regulaciju Novog Sada’, (The competition of urbanregulation of city of New Sada) Graevinski Vijesnik, no. 10, Zagreb, October,1937.
Grabrijan,D., ‘Muslimanskagroblja’(Muslimgraveyards),NoviBehar,nos.56,Sarajevo,193738.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Otvorenjeizlozbe‘Kruga’Ing.Arh.GrabrijanorazvojuslikarstvauSarajevu’ (The opening of the exhibition ‘Circle’, arch engineers Grabrijan’sreview of the development of art painting in Sarajevo), Jugoslovenski List,Sarajevo,26.10.1937.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Le Corbusier propovijeda kako je ako 18 godisnji mladic gradioprvukucusvojimroditeljimanaŽenevskomjezeru’(LeCorbusierstoryabouthisfirst building, his parents home on Geneva lake), Tehniar, no. 2, Beograd,November1937.
Grabrijan,D., ‘RadnikakuaakutanproblemSarajevaprimjenaprincipastareislamske arhitekture na modernu’ (Workers housing, an acute problem ofSarajevo – application of the principles of Islamic architecture in modernarchitecture),NoviBehar,nos.1316,Sarajevo,February1938.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Trg I spomenik kralja Petra I Pompeji Salzburg Sv. Petar RimCorbusier’ (Square and monument to King Peter, Pompei Salzburg, St PeterRomeLeCorbusier),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,20.2.1938.
Bibliography
285
Grabrijan,D.,‘TrgkraljaPetrainovopozoristeuSarajevu’(StPeter’ssquareandnewtheatreinSarajevo),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,19April1938.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Osvrt na izložbu radova (iz natjecaja za spomenik kralja Petra uSarajevu’ (Review of exhibition of the entries for the competition for themonument to King Peter in Sarajevo), Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, 28/ 29. 6.1938.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Spomenik kralju Aleksandru u Ljubljani’ (Monument to the KingAlexanderinLjubljana),Slovenec,Ljubljana,9August1938.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Podacioprojektovanjusokolskihdomova”,(Reviewofthedesignofsportshalls),Tehniar,Beograd,March/April/May,1938.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Regulacija Banje Ilidze od arhitekta Neidhardta’ (Regulation ofIlidžabathsbyarchitectNeidhardt),GraevinskiVijesnik,no.8.Zagreb,1938.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Za skeletnu, aprotiv masivne konstrukcije (slobodno po LeCorbusieru: Les precisions)’ (For skeletal and against masonry construction, aninterpretationofLeCorbusier’slesPrecisions),Tehniar,no.1,Beograd,Oktobar1938.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Kultura teferia (osvrt na bosansko islamsku arhitekturu)’ ( Thekultura of teferi, a view of Bosnian Islamic architecture), Jugoslovenki List,Sarajevo,8.7.1939.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Skloništa protiv napada iz vazduha’ (Anti air raid shelters),JugoslovenskaPošta,Sarajevo,27.9.1939.
Grabrijan,D.,Graevinskimaterijali (poLoosu)’ (BuildingmaterialsasbyLoos),Tehniar,no.5,Beograd,1939.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Princip obloge (po Loosu)’ (The cladding principles as by Loos),Tehniar,no.8,Beograd,May1939.
Grabrijan,D., ‘Osimetriji (polemicnidiopoSitteu,konkretnipoChoisyju)’ (Resymmetry, Sitte’s polemics and Choisy’s proposals), Tehniar, no.1, Beograd,October1939.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Problem akustike u modernoj arhitekturi (po Loosu i LeCorbusieru)’ (The acoustic problems in modern architecture, according to LoosandLeCorbusier),TehnikiList,nos.17&18,Zagreb,31.10.1939.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Zahorizontalniaprotivverikalnogprozora(poLeCorbusieru)’(Forhorizontal and against vertical windows, according to Le Corbusier), Tehniar,Beograd,January1940.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Tražimopodesnustambenuvisinu(poLeCorbusieru)’(Inasearchofgoodresidentialarchitecture),Tehniar,Beograd,March,1940.
Bibliography
286
Grabrijan, D., ‘Dvoetažni stanovi u višespratnim zgradama geneza jedne ideje(PoLoosuiLeCorbusieru)’(Twostoryflatsinmultistorybuildings,thegenesisofoneideaaccordingtoLoosandLeCorbusier),Tehniar,Beograd,March1940.
Grabrijan,D., ‘NoviTašlihan’ (NewTašlihan),NoviBehar, Sarajevo,nos.1920,15May1940.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Neboder Aleksandrova Bašaršija’ (Skyscraper – Alexander’s –Bašaršija),JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,9.6.1940.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Bašaršija jedna nova alternativa’ (Bašaršija one newalternative),JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,30.6.1940
Grabrijan, D., ‘Za holski sistem (M. Navisek) (The corridor system), Inženjer,Zagreb,vol.1,no.2,July1940.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Arhitekturanadohvatovjejeruke’(Architectureinhumanscale),NoviBehar,nos.23,Sarajevo,1940.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Arhitektonskiudionaizložbi‘Bosanskoselo’’(ArchitecturalpartoftheexhibitionBosnianvillage),JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,27.10.1940.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Sluaj Šerijatske gimnazije’ (The case of Sheriat school)JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,17.11.1940.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Avantura pokustva (po Loosu I Le Corbusieru)’ (Home wareaccording to Loos and Le Corbusier), Tehniar, no. 12, Beograd,October/November,1940.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Elastina kua’ (A flexible house), Tehniar, nos. 3 4, Beograd,December/January1940/41.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Urbanistika rješenja sarajevskih trgova’ (Urban proposals forSarajevo’ssquares),Pravda,Beograd,24.2.1941.
Grabrijan,D., ‘OdDomatehnikeradinostidoPaviljona‘CvijetaZuzori’’, (Fromtatechnicalcommunityhall to thepavilion ‘CvijetaZuzori’), JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,16March1941.
Grabrijan,D., ‘Reformastrokovnegasolstva’, (Onschoolreforms),Potopnik,no.23,Ljubljana,1945/46.
Grabrijan,D.,‘NatjeajzaljudskoskupšinoLRSvLjubljani’(ThecompetitionforSlovenianparliamentinLjubljana),Arhitektura,no.7,Zagreb,February,1948.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Dediššina Ljubljane’ (The heritage of Ljubljana), Arhitektura, no.1317,Zagreb,February,1948.
Bibliography
287
Grabrijan, D., ‘Plenik lavreat Prešernove nagrade’ (Plenik’s nomination forPrešern’saward),Ljudskitednik,Trieste,8.5.1949.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Šola za arhitekturno na Ljubljanski univerzi’ (The School ofArchitecutreatUniversityofLjubljana),SlovenskiPorocevalac,Ljubljana,12.11.1949.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Orijentalna hiža v Sarajevu’ (Oriental House in Sarajevo),Arhitektura,nos.2324,Zagreb,1949.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Naša orijentalna i savremena kua’ (Our Oriental andcontemporary house), Problemi arhitekture in urbanizma LRS, I posvetovanjeFLRJ,Dubrovnik1950,ArchitecturalandUrbandebates,RLSlovenia,symposiumheldinDubrovnikin1950.
D. Grabrijan, ‘Misli o Naši Dedišini v Zvezi z Referati s Posveta, Arhitektov vDubrovniku’,Separat,SlovenskiEtnograf,V/1952,pp.101106.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Misli o naši dedišini v zvazi z referati s posveta arhitektov vDubrovniku’(ThoughtsonourheritageinrelationtopresentationinDubrovnik),Ljubljana, 1950, brošura Dedišina narodov FLRJ v arhitekturi Likovni svet,Ljubljana,1951.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Spomeniki in nagrobniki narodnoovobodilnega boja’ (Monumenttopeople’srevolution),LikovniSvet,Ljubljana,1951.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Arhitektura v merilu loveka’ (Architecture in human scale),Arhitekt,no.4,Ljubljana,,May/June1952.
Grabrijan,D.,‘ArhitektonskonasljedenarodaJugoslavije’(ArchitecturalheritageofthepeopleofYugoslavia),Arhitektura,no.5,Zagreb,1952.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Organskiurbanizem’(Organicurbanism),Arhitekt,no.7,Ljubljana,November/December1952.
Grabrijan,D.,‘LeCorbusier’,NašiRazgledi,Ljubljana,4.October1952.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Obeležje makedonske civilne arhitekture in njeni tvorci (Thecharacteristics of Macedonian architecture and its creators), Naši Razgledi,Ljubljana,18October1952.
Grabrijan,D., ‘NajnovejsijedelomojstraPlenika’(ThemostrecentcreationsofthemaestroPlenik),NašiRazgledi,Ljubljana,29November1952.
Grabrijan,D., ‘Arhitektoslikarstvu rezoniranjearhitektaobumetnostiLojzetaSpacala’(ViewsonartofLojzeSpacala,anarchitectsperspective),Naširazgledi,Ljubljana,7November1953.
Bibliography
288
Grabrijan,D.,‘Dubrovniskidvorci’(Dubrovnik’scourts),Review,Arhitekt,no.10,Ljubljana,1952,
Grabrijan, D., ‘Lik Plenikove Ljubljane’ (Plenik’s Ljubljana), Naši Razgledi,Ljubljana,23February1957.
Grabrijan,D.,‘Primerjavaorientalskehisessodobno’(UseofOrientaltraditionincontemporaryresidentialdesign),NašiRazgledi,Ljubljana,19.9.1964.
Grabrijan,D.,‘VeliinainslabostiJožetaPlenika’(ThegreatnessintheweaknessofJožePlenik),Sodobnost,no.6.Ljubljana,1964.
Grabrijan, D., ‘Plenik i novija slovenaka arhitektura (Plenik and the newSlovenianarchitecture),Arhitekturaiurbanizam,no.38,Beograd,1966.
Grabrijan, D., (ed.), Urbanizam, arhitektura, konstrukcije (uredil besedilo),(Urbanism,architectureandconstruction)Ljubljana,ProjektivnizavodLRS,19451946.
Grabrijan,D.,Makedonskakuailiprelazstareorijentalneusavremenuevropskukuu,(MacedonianhouseandthetransformationsintocontemporaryEuropeanhouse),DZS,Ljubljana,1955.
Grabrijan,D.,Kakojenastalanašaslobodnahiša,(Developmentofourdomesticarchitecture),MK,Ljubljana,1959.
Grabrijan, D., Zgodovina Arhitekture, svobodno po Choisyju (History ofArchitecturebasedonChoisy),Univerza,Ljubljana,1949,[reprintedin1952and1961].
Grabrijan,D.(N.Grabrijaneditor),TheBosnianOrientalArchitectureinSarajevo,with Special Reference to the Contemporary one, Reprint, Dopisna delavskauniverza,Univerzum,Ljubljana,Slovenia,1983.
Websites
MuzejGradaSarajeva,StambenaKulturaStarogSarajeva,DES,Sarajevo,1975.http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang,en/ForreferencetoVaesitula(vessel)fromtheendofthe6thcenturyBC.Seewww.narmuzlj.si/ang/odd/arh/arhobj.html,viewedMay2009.ForextractsfromIvoAndri’snovelsee,http://www.ivoandric.org.yu/html/body_andric_s_treasury_ii.html,viewedJune2009.Mamuzovi,I.,‘Croatianmetallurgy,past,presentandfuture’,Metalurgija,43,1,2004,pp.3–12.http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf